25th Parliament · 1st Session
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.
page 801
(Senator Cavanagh having addressed a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister) -
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT__ Order!
The question is out of order. It anticipates discussion on a Bill that is now before another place.
page 801
– Has the Acting Minister for External Affairs seen a statement by Brigadier Jackson, which was reported in the Press, that in the area controlled by Australian troops 100,000 Vietnamese have been freed from Communist domination? If Australian troops were withdrawn as advocated by the Australian Labour Party, would the freedom of these people again be endangered and would they once again be subjected to Communist terror and intimidation? What effect would such a withdrawal have on the valuable civil aid programme that is being carried out by Australian troops?
– I saw a report in the Press which alleged that such a statement had been made by Brigadier Jackson. I do not believe there is any doubt at all that if troops were withdrawn from Vietnam, whether they be Australian troops or other troops, the terrorism and murder which were practised previously against all those opposed to the Vietcong would be renewed and stepped up. Consequently, I think that what the honorable senator has suggested is true. It is also true that, if the Australian Army were withdrawn from the area for which it is responsible, a considerable amount of civil aid that is now being given to villages in that area could not be continued.
page 801
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry the following question: What action has been taken by the Australian Wheat Board to diversify our overseas wheat markets and so lessen our dependence on Communist China?
– The honorable senator was good enough to indicate that he would be asking a question of this nature. That gave me an opportunity to get the following information for him from the Minister for Primary Industry: Under complementary Commonwealth and State wheat industry stabilisation legislation, the Australian Wheat Board has sole authority for the marketing of the Australian wheat crop. The confidence which the growers place in the Board is well known and reflects their general satisfaction with the Board’s achievements in selling successive crops to the best advantage of the growers. The Board has demonstrated that it is very well aware of the importance of seeking continually to export to as many markets as possible. It endeavours to maximise its sales to regular markets as well as to maintain its position in irregular markets, which are quite numerous, and to develop new ones in Asia, Latin America and Africa. In addition to making full use of its permanent overseas representatives, the Board sends representatives overseas regularly and also invites prospective buyers to Australia from time to time. Honorable senators may be assured that the Board is unceasing in its efforts to develop both new and existing markets. Its success in selling the large crops of recent years is evidence of its very commendable endeavours.
page 801
– In addressing a question to the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research, I refer to the Minister’s statement to the Senate on 21st September in which he mentioned that in accordance with the recommendations of the Wark Committee, the Government had decided to include post-graduate nursing courses in its plans for financial assistance. I ask: Can the Minister inform the Senate whether consideration has been given to the proposal to offer scholarships to students wishing to take post-graduate nursing courses? What scholarships are available in this important field of training?
– Recently a survey has been completed of post-graduate courses provided in nursing colleges in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, to determine whether those courses should be regarded as properly tertiary courses for which scholarships could be awarded. It has been decided that without any doubt the courses are properly tertiary courses. They have a tertiary content and are post-graduate courses. Consequently, it has been decided that in seven of the courses given by the nursing colleges people will be able to hold advanced education scholarships in order to enable them to attend the courses. I do not know the precise number of scholarships, but the courses have been admitted as suitable for the awarding of scholarships.
page 802
– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry been drawn to a statement attributed to Professor Cowley in today’s issue of the “ Australian “? Professor Cowley, Professor of Physics at the Melbourne University, is reported as saying, in effect, that any money industry gives for scientific research is little more than a public relations gesture - a contribution to the culture of the country without any real intention of helping scientific research that will, in the long run, benefit industry. If Professor Cowley’s statements are accurate, can the Minister discuss with his colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, how this apparent lack of liaison between industry and scientific research can be overcome? It is clear that close liaison between scientific research and industry in other parts of the world has made for great progress, and also that close liaison between scientific research and agriculture has meant much to this country.
– I have read the article to which the honorable senator referred. I believe every thinking person would agree that there is a lack of appreciation of scientific research in industry within Australia. I find that it stems largely from the fact that industry in Australia is able to lean on that magnificent organisation, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. This government organisation has for many years handled industry’s own problems when they have been put to it. Over the years, a habit has grown amongst industrialists rather to feel that the C.S.I.R.O. should handle this type of work. Of course, there is a vast field of other scientific research. I shall certainly see what can be done as far as the Department of Supply is concerned. I shall discuss with the Minister for Trade and Industry what we can do to bring about closer liaison between industry and scientific research, and to acquaint industry of the great necessity for its continuation in Australia.
page 802
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. Can the Minister give assurances that the future of the Lithgow Small Arms Factory will not be affected by the decision of the Army to throw overboard the FI rifle after only a short period of use and to equip fighting units with the United States manufactured Armalite rifle which imposes the necessity to import from the United States of America ammunition as well as the weapon itself? Can the Minister advise what effect this will have on work and employment in the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow?
– 1 think that the question should have been directed to the Minister for Supply rather than to me as representing the Minister for the Army. Perhaps the best thing I can do in order to obtain a satisfactory answer for the honorable senator is to suggest that he place the question on the notice paper.
page 802
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Acting Treasurer. I am concerned that insufficient notification has been conveyed to certain areas of taxpayers regarding the excellent provision for the encouragement of production which is set out in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech. I refer particularly to the provisions relating to primary producers and the bearing that those provisions have on the averaging of income and the carry forward of losses of previous years.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! The honorable senator should ask his question.
– 1 ask the Minister: Will the Government give consideration to having the Taxation Branch notify all primary producers of the taxation provisions available in this current tax year?
– 1 take it that the honorable senator refers to the averaging system which has been in existence for many years. Under this system primary producers are enabled to average their incomes over five years, and this has been of great advantage to primary industry. There has been a limit on this procedure of $8,000, but under the present Budget proposals this amount will be increased to $16,000. Those who have not previously had an opportunity to take advantage of the averaging system, or who have not chosen to do so, will thus be given the opportunity to do so. Incidentally, provision also has been made to enable people already taking advantage of the scheme to withdraw if they so wish. This system is of great assistance to producers and should be widely known. Tax agents who look after the taxation returns of primary producers, I am sure, are well aware of this matter. However, if there is anything further that we should do to alert primary producers to the advantages of the tax provisions I shall consider it.
page 803
– I address a question to the Minister for Housing. It refers to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Is the rate of 7± per cent, calculated on monthly rests, quarterly rests, halfyearly rests or yearly rests? What is the highest interest rate charged on any insured loan, when reduced to a quarterly reduction basis? What is the highest loan insured and at what rate of interest is the loan made? ls interest calculated monthy, quarterly, half-yearly or yearly?
– The honorable senator was good enough to inform me that he intended to ask that question, and I have been able to obtain answers for him. The maximum permissible rate of interest payable on a loan insured by the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is Ti per cent, per annum calculated at annual rests. The Corporation has advised me that the highest rate of interest that may be charged on any insured loan that is reduced by quarterly repayments may not exceed an effective interest rate of Ti per cent, per annum calculated at annual rests. The effective rate will, of course, vary with the duration of the loan. The Corporation has also advised me that the largest loan it has insured in respect of a single dwelling is for $17,000. This is the maximum that the Corporation is permitted to insure. The highest rate of interest payable on a loan of this amount insured at 30th June last was 7 per cent, per annum.
page 803
– Has the Acting Minister for External Affairs seen in today’s Press reported statements, allegedly emanating from North Vietnam and the Vietnam National Liberation Front, concerning the basis upon which peace negotiations in Vietnam could commence? Docs the Minister regard these statements as in fact reducing the number of issues which now prevent peace negotiations? Does the Government intend to react to the reports or to initiate any diplomatic moves in the light of them?
– I saw the reports referred to by the honorable senator, but neither the Government nor the Department of External Affairs has any indication whether they are well based. We do not know who actually made these suggestions, how they were made or whether there is substance in them. I would prefer not to comment until these things are known.
page 803
– I direct a question to the Acting Minister for External Affairs. In the interests of diplomatic harmony, was action taken to permit the diplomat owner of a dalmatian dog in Canberra, which was condemned to destruction for destroying sheep, to pay adequate compensation to the grazier concerned and then to take the dog back to his homeland?
– I think that this is really a matter, not for the Department of External Affairs, but for the authorities in Canberra which have to deal with the depredations of dogs. This dog killed a large number of sheep and, as anybody on the land would know, is liable to kill sheep at any time from now on. I would much prefer to leave this matter to the authorities really responsible for it.
page 804
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior: What is the procedure for pensioners to apply for Government accommodation in the Australian Capital Territory? How many pensioners are on the waiting list for such accommodation at present? What is the average waiting period for such people?
– I shall endeavour to obtain the information from the Minister for the Interior.
page 804
– I desire to ask a question of the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research. In view of the ever increasing burdens being placed on people in all Stales because of drought and the lack of any national disaster fund to insure against such calamities, will the Minister procure and table in the Senate details of the schemes in operation in New Zealand and the United States of America so that adequate study may be made of this problem and appropriate action suggested by honorable senators?
– I ‘ suggest that the matter raised by the honorable senator really conies within the purview of the Treasurer, whom I represent in this chamber. If the honorable senator places the question on the notice paper I shall see what information I can get for her.
page 804
(Question No. 947.)
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -
page 804
(Question No. 948.)
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
In view of the fact that the Government has issued a service medal to Australian troops who have taken part in the conflict in Vietnam, will the Government now issue an appropriate medal to Australian veterans of the Gallipoli campaign, as requested by the Gallipoli Legion of Anzac and other ex-servicemen?
– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -
The possibility of giving special recognition to Gallipoli veterans has been considered on many occasions by Australian and New Zealand Governments since the First World War. A proposal for a Gallipoli Star was approved in 1917, but approval was withdrawn because of strong objections from many quarters, including representations from Australian and New Zealand servicemen who had served at Gallipoli, and who expressed opposition to the issue of an award that could not also be conferred on their British comrades.
The Australian Government again examined the matter thoroughly last year and again decided against requesting Her Majesty’s approval to the issue of a special medal. The Government felt, however, that the historic significance of the Gallipoli campaign for Australia and New Zealand merited some form of recognition, and it decided to issue to Gallipoli veterans a medallion and a lapel badge. The lapel badge, which will be a replica of one side of the medallion - the obverse, depicting Simpson and his donkey - will be a dignified and fitting symbol for wearing on Anzac Day or other special occasions. The Government’s decision to issue a medallion is shared by the Government of New Zealand, which is participating fully in the project. Both Governments have consulted with their appropriate ex-service organisations. I am glad to say that among these bodies, including our Returned Services League and the Gallipoli Legion, there has been virtually unanimous acceptance of the proposals.
page 805
(Question No. 949.)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -
– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -
Emergency Fund. The matter is being kept under review by the Board which foresees no serious problems in arranging for the manufacture in quantity of the biscuit should the need arise.
page 805
(Question No. 975.)
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
As a payroll tax in relation to the stevedoring labour content of overseas freight charges is approximately 33c per man hour, will consideration be given to assisting the sugar and fruit industries by relieving them of this tax in the same way as relief is given to manufacturing industries to stimulate exports?
– The Acting Treasurer has supplied the following answer -
I assume that the payroll tax to which the honorable senator refers is the stevedoring industry charge which is levied at the rate of 33c per man hour of employment of waterside workers. The rebates of payroll tax allowed under the export incentive schemes are not related to the stevedoring industry charge; nor are they restricted to manufacturing industry. They relate to tax levied under the Payroll Tax Act and are based on increases in the value of exports by individual firms as related to the gross receipts of the firms.
The proceeds of the stevedoring industry charge, which is levied in relation to exports of theproducts of manufacturing, mining and primary industries alike, are used to finance paymentsof attendance money, sick leave pay, public holiday pay and so on made by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to waterside workers. If some exporters were to be relieved of this charge, the proceeds from the charge would be reduced and, to make good the loss, it would be necessary to increase the rate of charge, thus imposing a greater burden on exporters still liable to it. Furthermore, the charge differs from the payroll tax in that the latter is a tax whereas the former is in the nature of a charge for services rendered by waterside workers. For these reasons, I do not consider that it would be appropriate to grant particular groups of exporters relief from the charge.
page 805
(Question No. 1003.)
asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Health, upon notice -
– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply -
page 806
(Question No. 1006.)
asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -
Will the Minister state whether unnaturalised persons who qualify for military callup, and who leave Australia, will be allowed to re-enter at an age when they are no longer eligible for military service?
– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answer -
The re-entry to Australia of aliens who leave here in the circumstances referred to by the honorable senator will not be debarred solely because of their departure to avoid national service. Applications for re-admission from persons in this category will be dealt with on their individual merits and in accordance with normal immigration policy.
page 806
– I present the twenty-second report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, together with minutes of evidence.
Ordered to be printed.
page 806
Motion (by Senator Gorton) agreed to -
That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Public Service Act 1922-1964.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
.- I move-
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Public Service Act 1922-1964. Broadly speaking, the proposed amendments are considered necessary by the Government in order -
First, to introduce appropriate special provisions concerning Commonwealth public servants required to undergo compulsory defence service and to recognise certain service in operational areas as warranting returned soldier status under the Public Service Act;
Secondly, to provide statutory authorisation for a number of improvements in conditions of employment in the Commonwealth Service; and
Thirdly, to remove certain difficulties and anomalies in existing legislative provisions, and to meet developments in Public Service administration.
Thus, certain of the amendments involve new benefits and entitlements, whilst others are designed to correct technicalities which have arisen in interpreting existing provisions.
I shall refer several times to proposals made by the Joint Council. This is an employeremployee body comprising representatives of the staff associations, the departments and the Public Service Board which advises the Board on matters of general interest referred to the. Council. It meets twice yearly and has, over the years, done much useful work.
Before outlining the main provisions of this Bill I should mention that, in accordance with an announcement made on 25th August 1966 by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, the Public Service Act is also to be amended in relation to the permanent employment of married women. The drafting of the relevant legislation is in train, and a Bill covering this aspect will be introduced as soon as possible.
As honorable senators are aware, provisions were enacted in 1965 to protect the interests of, and to provide certain benefits for, national servicemen. Those provisions apply irrespective of the vocations of individuals. Because the legislative framework which governs conditions of employment in the Commonwealth Public Service is particularised in the Public Service Act, certain special provisions are necessary to ensure that staff are appropriately covered and protected during absences on compulsory defence service. These particular provisions will have retrospective effect to 30th June 1965, the date on which national service recommenced, in order to give statutory backing to the relevant administrative policies which have been adopted.
Clause 19 provides for the automatic granting of leave from the Public Service for periods of absence on compulsory defence service. Entitlements of staff during their absence have been approved by the Public Service Board and notified to departments and staff associations. They will be reviewed as and when changes appear desirable. I should emphasise that the terms and conditions during leave are not less favorable than the provisions of the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965, which relates to all national servicemen. Under clause 20 of the present Bill the period of absence will be recognised for such Public Service purposes as furlough and date of future salary increments. Pay and leave conditions during defence service will be the same as for other national servicemen.
The amendments in clause 13 (b) and (c) are designed to protect the promotion appeal rights of officers absent on compulsory defence service. These provisions are essential if such officers are not to suffer career disadvantages. This protection has been operating administratively since the reintroduction of national service.
Clause 12 will remove technical difficulties which would otherwise prevent the permanent appointment of an officer who is on compulsory defence service when the appointment is made, from becoming effective and from being confirmed upon expiration of his probationary period. The Government considers that it would be unfair to delay confirmation of appointment, with its attendant full superannuation benefits and security of tenure, in such cases.
The purpose of clause 3(b) is to bring certain operational service within the requirements for the granting of “returned soldier “ status under the Public Service Act. Persons to whom the Public Service Act definition of “ returned soldier “ applies now have certain special entitlements under that Act. The intention is that these entitlements will be extended to persons who have special service under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act, including those with operational service in Vietnam and Malaysia.
The Public Service Act provides for the granting of furlough, in specified circumstances, to permanent officers, and also for payment in lieu of such furlough entitlements on leaving the Service. Several additional concessions relating to furlough are provided in this Bill. There are existing provisions in the Public Service Act for payment in lieu of furlough prior to completion of fifteen years’ service to the dependants of deceased officers and in certain cases of retirement. Clause 22 (1) (d) of this Bill provides authority for payment in lieu of furlough in the future where the Public Service Board is satisfied that an officer with at least ten but less than fifteen years’ continuous service is ceasing duty on account of domestic or other pressing necessity. In agreeing to this new benefit, the Government had particular regard to the somewhat similar provisions now embodied in some State legislation and to decisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, including those in respect of the Metal Trades and Graphic Arts industries. There is also a similar provision in the Stevedoring Industry Act. Practices adopted under those provisions will provide useful guidance to the Public Service Board in administering this provision. It is intended that a complementary amendment will be made to the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act - which relates to Commonwealth staff who are not permanent officers of the Commonwealth Public Service - when next that Act is before the Parliament.
Introduction of this new concession rendered desirable some slight adjustment of the existing scale of entitlements in order that all officers who in future enter the ten to fifteen years’ service group will have precisely the same furlough entitlements - clause 22(l)(b) and clause 22(2) refer. I should emphasise that the amendments contained in clause 22 have been concurred in by the Joint Council. The provisions in clause 22 include authority for the Public Service Board to decide whether or not any payment in lieu of furlough should be made to an officer who is dismissed after at least fifteen years of qualifying service. At present, a dismissed officer automatically loses the whole of his furlough credit - often involving a considerable sum of money - even though he may have completed many years of satisfactory service prior to the commission of the offence which results in dismissal. This matter was the subject of proposals by the High Council of Public Service Organisations and of a recommendation by the Joint Council. The Government is satisfied that a discretionary power is essential to avoid total penalties which are, in the light of modern practice, unduly harsh in some cases.
In 194 L certain officers of the Public Service of the Northern Territory were taken into the Commonwealth Public Service. The then existing furlough entitlements of these officers (which at that stage were more favourable than those provided in the Public Service Act) were preserved by inserting a special provision (section 75a) in the Public Service Act. The Government has now decided that these officers should have recourse to furlough provisions which have accrued to other officers of the Commonwealth Public Service because of subsequent amendments to the general furlough provisions of the Public Service Act, where such general provisions are more favourable. This is the purpose of clause 23.
The Public Service Act does not at present provide for payment in lieu of recreation leave to a permanent officer who is leaving the Commonwealth Public Service. On the other hand, temporary employees are entitled to such payments under an arbitration determination. Clause 17 stems from the desire of the Government that payments be made to a permanent officer on cessation - or, on death, to his dependants - similar to those which are made to temporary employees.
To permit the inclusion in the Act of this concession, which was recommended by a sub-committee of the Joint Council, it has been necessary to spell out in the Act the system for accrual of recreation leave. This system hitherto has been covered by regulations made under the Public Service Act, and by administrative instructions. As also recommended by the sub-committee of the Joint Council, some changes have been made in the accrual system and related provisions. These changes are designed to provide a more equitable, and administratively suitable, system for determining entitlements by relating them more precisely to actual periods of service. Certain of the provisions on recreation leave will operate from 1st January J 967, to provide an appropriate forewarning of the changes involved, but the payment in lieu provisions will operate from the date of royal assent. [ now turn to a number of other amendments which have been found necessary for the effective administration of the Commonwealth Public Service. Action taken following recommendations by the Committee of Inquiry into Systems of Promotions and Temporary Transfers, known as the Bailey Committee, in 1944 included the introduction of appeal rights for officers against other officers selected for temporary transfer to higher positions. Staff associations, departments, and the Public Service Board all attach considerable importance to these provisions, but doubts have arisen as to their legality. Clause 14 is designed to resolve these technical difficulties and so ensure (hat the rights of officers are adequately protected. Clause 8 is a related amendment dealing with salary increments.
Clause 25 arises from the need to overcome a problem which virtually prevents the employment of United States nationals in Commonwealth departments. Under the Public Service Act all temporary employees, except those employed overseas, must, like permanent officers, take an oath or affirmation in which they swear or declare allegiance to the Queen and to uphold the Constitution. But if an American citizen does so he loses his United States nationality. As the professional and technical skills required on certain Commonwealth projects of national importance are sometimes most readily available by the use of limited numbers of United States personnel, it is desirable to permit temporary employment, without requiring the taking of the oath or affirmation, in appropriate cases. This attitude is consistent with that adopted in legislation relating to a number of Commonwealth statutory authorities - for example, in sub-section (4) of section 21 of the Science and Industry Research Act, relating to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which was enacted in 1949.
I should mention that the waiving of the oath in these circumstances will not affect the normal administrative processes of employment, including appropriate warnings regarding disclosure of official information. Before exercising his discretion to waive the need to take the oath or affirmation the Governor-General is to satisfy himself that the proposed employment will not be prejudicial to the national interest.I should also emphasise that there will be no provision for waiving of the requirement that appointees to the permanent staff must take the oath or affirmation.
The purpose of clauses 9 and 10 is to give the Public Service Board a discretion to appoint a person who has special skills or qualifications without requiring himto serve a probationary period, where the Board considers that circumstances in his particular case make this desirable. This is, in effect, an extension of a principle already embodied in several sections of the Act in relation to certain appointments. It will permit, in a relatively small number of appropriate cases, offers of appointment carrying immediate security of tenure, without which some appointees would be loath to leave similar employment elsewhere.
The opportunity has also been taken to include several other amendments of a machinery nature. I should mention that clauses 6 and 29(b) are merely to cover a legal technicality in existing provisions and will remove any possible legal doubt that the person appointed as Chairman of the Repatriation Commission under the Repatriation Act is able to function also as permanent head of the Repatriation Department for the purposes of the Public Service Act. Clause 7 provides permanent head powers for the Commissionerof Trade Practices in relation to the organisation under his control, while clause 16 clarifies the requirements in relation to acting appointments in the First Division, which consists almost entirely of permanent heads of departments. Ministers responsible for areas of Commonwealth employment not coming under the Public Service Act will examine the best methods of extending the provisions of this Bill to such areas of employment.
In these days of complex government administration it is essential that the legislative provisions under which the Public Service operates should be constantly under review. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.
page 809
Motion (by Senator Henry) agreed to -
That Government business lake precedence of general businessafter 8 p.m. this sitting.
page 809
Debate resumed from 28th September (vide page 800), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin -
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Upon which Senator Tangney had moved by way of amendment -
At end of motion add - “ but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should be condemned because -
the proposed increase in pension rates still leaves the pensioner’s standard of living below what is a reasonable Australian minimum;
the Government is perpetuating the substandard rate for married pensioners despite the glaring anomalies and injustices in this course;
there is still no change in the income means test which has now retrained unchanged during twelve years of inflation and rising prices;
the Government has once again failed to put any value back into child endowment payments and has repudiated its pledges by allowing many other social services to lose their value; and
it has failed to make benefits retrospective to the 1st July, 1966 “.
.- Last night I indicated that the present pension rate is $10.80 a week less than the current basic wage. I had set out to show to the Senate the extent of the depreciation in the pension rate as compared with the basic wage over a period of years. In 1948, the joint pension rate for a couple was. to use today’s currency, $8.50. The six capital cities basic wage at that time was $ 1 1 . 90. The difference at that time between the pension rate and the basic wage was thus $3.40. In 1966 the pension rate for a couple is $22 a week. The basic wage for the six capital cities is $32.80, so that the gap is now $10.80. From 1948 to 1966 that gap has widened by $7.40. It is clear that the pension rate has not nearly kept pace with the basic wage.
Honorable senators will be aware that the basic wage has never truly reflected the cost of living. First, came the needs basic wage; then the basic wage as applied to the C ser.es retail prices index. Today the basic wage is related to the consumer price index. From the time of the inception of the basic wage, the gap between the basic wage and the pension rate has been ever widening. I say quite definitely that the whole fabric of the basic wage system has been disturbed. In many instances it has been juggled to suit the economic policy of the Government. That is particularly true of the last few years, when we have seen representatives of the Government go into court and give evidence against the employees in their application for increases in the basic wage.
The means test has been referred to by previous speakers in the debate. The means test poses a problem which I think must be faced by the present Government. 1 have with me a number of letters which I have received from pensioners and pensioner organisations in Tasmania. They are in very similar terms and I shall read from only one of them to indicate how some of the pensioners in Tasmania at least feel on the subject of the means test. The South Eastern Pensioners and Disabled Persons Association claims increased pension benefits, together with an easing of the means rest. 1 point out to the Senate that the Association has not asked for the complete abolition of the means test. It has requested merely an casing of the means test to enable pensioners to earn up to a certain amount, so that the pension and the earnings combined will be equal to the basic wage.
If the means test were to be eased only to the extent requested by the Association, this would provide single pensioners and pensioner couples with a much higher standard of living than they enjoy at the present time. The Association also has requested increased assistance for treatment in private hospitals. I do not think I need to say much about that suggestion because I am confident that everybody is in complete accord with it. The Association has requested that a subsidy be paid in respect of houses belonging to housing departments and occupied by pen sioners. I appreciate that this suggestion involves some problems, because the necessary provision would need to be written into the Commonwealth and State housing agreements. The final request of the Association, which I think is well worth considering, is that the funeral benefit be increased to $100 and that the benefit be payable to the person responsible for the funeral expenses, irrespective of his circumstances. I do not wish to traverse the history of the funeral benefit, but we know that since this Government came to office on 10th December 1949 it has not increased the benefit.
In considering the abolition of the means test, might I suggest that an age limit for exemption from the provisions of the means test be set down. Males could perhaps be exempted at the age of 70 years and females at the age of 65 years. I am not saying that this is Labour Party policy. I am merely throwing this out as a suggestion which could be considered as a possible starting point.
Senator Breen referred to the easing of the means test. The editorial of the Hobart “ Mercury “ of 5th September 1966 referred to the abolition of the means test. It stated, in part -
In an introspective swansong in the House of Representatives last week Tasmania’s Mr. Falkinder reproached the Federal Parliament for its failure to grasp such problems as the abolition of the means lest for pensioners.
It was a well deserved reproach. A promise - at least implied - to abolish the means test has been maturing for 17 years, and in that lime Australia has not produced a Treasurer of big enough stature to face the problem squarely.
I think that puts the matter in perspective. lt is rather refreshing to see that at least one newspaper in Australia is behind the pensioners and the many other people who are endeavouring to get some relief from the means test as it operates at present. A further paragraph in the editorial stated -
The ironic feature of the present system is that it imposes a harsh penalty on those who probably are the most deserving - the people who have tried to make provision for their old age. They find now that all they have accomplished is to disqualify themselves from the receipt of a pension and to condemn themselves to spending their last years in genteel poverty
I think that sums up the position. I have always felt that a pension should be paid as a right, and not subject to a means test. However, I realise that, with the present rate of pension payments, Australia perhaps is not in a position to give immediate effect to the complete abolition of the means test.
The Minister in her second reading speech enumerated the new provisions which will be included in the Act, and I give the Government credit for those new provisions. What is very noticeable, however, is the number of matters omitted from both the second reading speech and the Bill. One thing that concerns me is the Government’s failure to face up to its responsibilities regarding the maternity allowance. This allowance was introduced by the Fisher Government in 191 2, and at that time was fixed at $10. I am using decimal currency terms. In 1943 the Curtin Government increased the allowance to S30 where there were no other children, to $32 where there one or two other children under 14 years of age, and to $35 where there were three or more other children under 14 years of age. Those allowances represented more than three times the basic wage at that time. I come back to the Federal basic wage in 1943, when these particular provisions were introduced. It then was $9.60 a week. As I said a few moments ago, the Federal basic wage in the six capital cities today is $32.80. So, the increase in the Federal basic wage between 1943 and the present time is $23.20. But in that period of 23 years the maternity allowances have not changed.
If proportionate increases had been applied to the maternity allowances between 1943 and 1966 - this is only a reasonable proposition - the $30 maternity allowance which is now payable to a mother who has no other children under 16 years of age would become $102, the $32 now payable to a mother with one or two other children would become $109 and the $35 now payable to a mother with three or more other children would rise to S I 1 9. One can see how much the mothers of this country have lost because the Government has not retained in 1966 the relationship that existed between the maternity allowance and the Federal basic wage in 1943. One could say perhaps that this failure represents an act of robbery of women who bear children, whether they bear those children by accident or by design.
I refer honorable senators to the Twentyfifth Report of the Director-General of Social Services. 1965-66. This report shows that the expenditure on maternity allow ances has decreased. The amount paid by way of maternity allowances in 1964-65 was $7,294,000, but in 1965-66 this amount fell to $7,159,000, a decrease of 1.8 per cent. Why should this situation exist when an increase in our population has occurred during that time? One would expect the amount paid in maternity allowances to have risen.
Probably one of the better features of the social services legislation now before the Senate is the recognition given to persons in or leaving mental hospitals. This is a matter in which I have taken great interest. I know that Senator Wedgwood on the Government side has taken quite an interest in the matter also. We have deplored the fact always that rib allowances whatever have been payable to persons in mental hospitals or to persons when they leave mental hospitals. 1 feel that the provision contained in the Social Services Bill 1966 in this regard is one of the good features of this legislation.
I could continue to quote figures on child endowment, unemployment and sickness benefit and the other benfits that are payable under the Social Services Act. However, there are quite a number of other speakers who will be able to cover many of the aspects of this legislation and who will perhaps be able to indicate to the Government the absence of a practical solution to the problems of pensioners. It is noticeable again that the Government has granted greater increases to the single pensioner than to married pensioner couples. I feel that this is wrong in principle although I realise that a single pensioner is subject to more expense than a married pensioner couple because a single pensioner lives on his or her own. Nevertheless, the gap between these two classes of pensioner is forever widening. One wonders when the legislation in this respect will be brought to a more reasonable level.
I support the amendment that was moved by Senator Tangney on behalf of the Opposition to the motion for the second reading of this Bill. As the amendment covers such a wide field of benefits and relates to the anomalies that exist under the Social Services Act, I sincerely trust that the amendment will be carried and that more equitable social service legislation will result.
– Madam Acting Deputy President, this annual examination of our social service legislation provides the Senate with the opportunity to have a look at what the Government is doing regarding social services generally. 1 would like to congratulate the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) on her second reading speech and particularly on the wealth of material embodied in it. I congratulate also the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Sinclair) and the Department of Social Services on the amount of information that is available to us with regard to social services.
The Twenty-fifth Report of the DirectorGeneral of Social Services, 1965-66 contains a great deal of detailed information that enables us to appreciate what the Department is doing and also some of the problems that are associated with the administration of it. The Department has made available to us also a document which contains a great number of statistics by way of a general examination of the development in social service benefits from 1949 to 1966. We have received also another publication entitled “ Social Services - Facts and Figures “. I take it that these publications are available fairly readily to anybody who is interested in the question of social services. I believe that the public is showing a great interest at the moment in our policy relating to social services.
One hears a great deal these days about the abolition of the means lest. It seems to be popular to think that this is an easy matter; that all the Government has to do is to decide to abolish the means test and that is that and everybody will receive a pension. Of course, it is not as simple as that. lt has been calculated that the increase in cost involved would be of the order of $340 million. We need to remember that paying out vast sums of money, in the form of pensions and social service benefits generally, from the national revenue simply means that workers will have to be taxed more heavily during their working lives. It has been said that this demand for the abolition of the means test simply amounts to a demand to take from the needy to supply the greedy. Whilst I do not go along with that. I admit that there is an element of truth in it. We would be devoting our available resources to paying money to people who did not need that money and we would, of necessity, be reducing our ability to meet the needs of people in the lower income groups. So we need to approach this question with great caution.
Many proposals have been made in regard to national superannuation. This seems to be a very attractive proposition until one examines it in detail. It involves collecting from people over the period of their working lives what amounts to a tax in order to provide a pension. It involves taking money from people during a period when they need every penny they can find for their young and growing families. In the present situation we see a steady decline in the value of money. That means that the money that people contributed would have a greater value than that of the money that they received. So it seems to me to be a much more simple and more straightforward procedure to pay out in pensions money that is collected by taxation in the year in which it is collected. Then there is no fall in the purchasing power of the money that is devoted to this purpose.
I believe that a case can be made out for some public examination of our policies. I have long thought that it would be desirable to have a top level inquiry into the whole matter of social services. I know that our Department of Social Services is very well equipped to examine these matters, but I believe that the public would appreciate some public examination of our policies. What do the people want? Do they want a universal handout or a social services system that supplies the greatest benefit to those in the greatest need? In my opinion, such a public examination would be a worthwhile exercise in public relations, if in no other sense. I believe that it would bring to light a great deal of information that would allay many of the doubts and fears that are in the minds of the public in respect of Australia’s social services policy.
I know that all of us in this chamber can find areas of the programme in which we believe more money should be made available. But when we examine the picture as a whole we find that the Government is doing a great deal within the capability of the community to find the money. This matter certainly depends on the judgment of the government of the day. I believe that the present Government has given evidence in this year’s Budget of its concern for the needs of the people. It has striven to alleviate the problems in connection with the means test. As revealed in the figures, there has been a progressive alleviation of the means test. As we decrease the rigidity of the means test or liberalise it, we bring other people into the position of being on the boundaries, as it were, of the receipt of benefits. In this field we will always have problems that can never be completely overcome. I believe that in this Bill the Government is making a very genuine and sincere effort to overcome the problems inherent in social services generally.
Senator Tangney criticised the Bill from the Opposition viewpoint and moved an amendment. I found that 1 disagreed very strongly with some aspects of her speech. On several occasions I have had cause to congratulate her on what she has said on various matters. But on this occasion I felt that she spoiled an otherwise very good contribution to the debate by making certain criticisms of the organisations operating under the Aged Persons Homes Act. She made these criticisms not in a direct way, she made innuendoes rather than charges. At one stage I interjected and said: “ Is the honorable senator suggesting that any of these organisations are making a profit?” She replied: “ I am not- game to say it in this place “. I have never suspected that she lacked courage. I have observed, with considerable admiration at times, the way in which she has debated matters in this chamber. When an honorable senator stands up and says that she is not game to say what she thinks, 1 suggest that this needs some examination. She has the protection of the Senate in making any charges that she feels need to be made.
In this instance, Senator Tangney rather smeared all the organisations operating under the Aged Persons Homes Act by making her charges in the way she did. She insinuated that some unnamed organisations were not conducting their affairs properly. In essence, the charge was that they were making profit out of aged people. I consider that this charge should be made in a more specific way, so that any organisation that she has in mind can refute it, if possible, and so that people who she does not want to include in her condemnation, are not smeared by her general allegation.
It is not good enough to say that some organisations, which are unnamed, are doing this and I regret that Senator Tangney saw fit to bring this sort of allegation into the Senate. It does not get us anywhere. It does not help the cause she seeks to assist and I do not think it did her a great deal of credit. I hope Senator Tangney will pursue the matter in a more definite way so that the Minister can take action if necessary to remedy any deficiencies in the administration of the Aged Persons Homes Act because I think this aspect of our social services provisions has made a great contribution to the wellbeing of aged persons.
I was rather amazed that Senator Tangney criticised the operations of the Act on the ground that it did not confine its operations to pensioners. Surely this is inconsistent with the idea of eliminating the means test. We hear a great deal i rom the Opposition along that line. Honorable senators opposite want to lift the means test and eliminate it if possible. Surely this is one aspect of our social services from which the means test has been eliminated. It deals with the needs of aged people irrespective of their financial situation. If we look at the overall picture, we find that the great majority of the people in aged persons homes are in fact pensioners. If they are not pensioners, they include a great many people who are on the fringe of pension benefits. The number of so-called wealthy people in homes for the aged would be minimal. In any case, having means does not necessarily eliminate any human problem such as loneliness and a need for attention in time of sickness. These things are not confined to any particular level of income. It is a very fine thing that anyone in the population can come within the provisions of the Aged Persons Homes Act.
While I am on the subject of aged persons and the treatment provided under the legislation, I commend the provision that up to one third of the number of aged persons in any particular group can be accommodated permanently in beds provided by the organisation concerned. This is not actually in the Bill but comes under administration. One of the weaknesses of the Act in the past has been the limitation imposed by it. In many cases, the number of people needing medical care and who are virtually hospitalised increases as the age of the people in that group rises. This aspect has caused much worry to those who are interested in the conduct of aged persons homes.
The Government’s action will get over the great difficulty those responsible were in, both in financing and organising the care of the aged. It will also have a very beneficial effect in reducing the demands on this sort of accommodation in hospitals. One of the great problems in the administration of hospitals has been the number or beds occupied by geriatric patients. The new provisions in the legislation will have a great effect on the availability of beds in public and other hospitals.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on his policy of decentralising the administration of the Department of Social Services. New centres are being opened so that a greater number of people will have ready access to the officers of the Department. These aspects of the Bill before us and of the administration of the Department generally support what I have been saying about the conduct of the Department generally. We are interested also in the rectification of an anomaly with regard to aliens in Australia. I am sure this liberalisation of the benefits to people regardless of their country of origin and subject only to the time of residence in Australia, will be welcomed by everybody. As I have said, the purpose of the Department of Social Services is to relieve human need, and these people are deserving of the benefits available to them. I am very pleased to see that the Department has removed this nationality bar.
The other aspect of the Bill which pleases me is the provision that twelve weeks’ pension will be available to those who have the misfortune to need attention in mental hospitals. I am afraid many people have been reluctant to offer themselves voluntarily for treatment for mental diseases because of the fear that their pension rights would be affected. This is a very great step towards solving the problem. The figures show that 77 per cent, of the admissions to mental hospitals are for a duration of only 12 weeks or less, so more than threequarters of those admitted to mental hospitals will benefit by the provision of 12 weeks pension when they return to their homes. This is designed to enable many more people to seek attention voluntarily. Very often, early attention to their mental ill health means that they can return to their homes and be cured of their trouble very much more efficiently than if their admission to hospital had been delayed. On the other hand, their ill health might be increased by their reluctance to seek attention. This is a very commendable provision in the Bill before the Senate. 1 do not want to examine the figures in the way they have been approached in this debate. It is easy to devise methods of twisting figures so that they prove this, that or the other thing. I am sure that an unbiased examination of the facts available will show that the benefits are in fact more than keeping pace with the increase in the cost of living. Senator Tangney mentioned that the £1 was now worth only 8s.
– The honorable senator knows that that is not true.
– It is true. One case at which we can look to refute the claim that the benefits are not keeping pace with the rising cost of living is the case of widows’ benefits, which was instanced by Senator Tangney. In fact, the fall in the value of money since 1949, on the basis stated by her of £1 being now worth only 8s., means that a 2S0 per cent, increase would be required to meet the situation. Let us look at the case in which the greatest need is obvious, that of a widow with four children. She now receives 384 per cent, more than she would have received in 1949. In addition to this., the permissible income that she may earn has been greatly increased. There are increases also in the fringe benefits - so called - which must be taken into consideration. We cannot simply take the level of one item without looking at the whole area of benefits conferred. Looking at the whole area, we find that in every case the increases have kept pace with any decline in the value of the purchasing power of money. I commend this Bill to the Senate. I think that it is a genuine and sincere attempt to deal with the problems of aged and sick persons.
– I listened with amazement to Senator Prowse who, after stating that people can use figures for their own purposes and that because of this he did not intend to cite figures, proceeded to do the very thing that he said ought not to be done, by twisting facts to try to make a case, and trying to make figures work for him. This is rather a farcical facet of the honorable senator’s speech.
Senator Tangney, on behalf of the Australian Labour Party, has moved an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second lime. The first part of the amendment argues that the proposed increases in pension rates will leave pensioners’ standard of living below a reasonable Australian minimum. This, I feel, cannot be refuted. Any figures that can be brought forward by Senator Prowse, drawn out of his head to suit a particular case, do not alter the fact that the people who really know, the people who are suffering from the impact of the inequality of pensions - the pensioners themselves - are not likely to be impressed by figures that are alleged to prove that their standard of living today is better than it was in 1949 and that their pensions have in fact kept pace with increases in the cost of living.
– Does the honorable senator believe that their standards have dropped?
– Yes, certainly they have dropped. The pensioners and I are not the only ones who believe this. I want to quote from the leading article in the Melbourne “Age” of 10th December last year. It reads -
None suffer more from the creeping and occasionally leaping inflation that seems inseparable from an expanding economy than those on modest fixed incomes. They include a large number of elderly men and women who depend solely or substantially on superannuation schemes to which they contributed during their working lives. Now in their retirement they find that the earnings they had put aside for their old age have diminished in value and their living standards are being steadily eroded by rising costs and prices. The wage earner, however humble, is compensated regularly for the growth of productivity, but the superannuated citizen no longer shares in the flourishing prosperity to which he so long contributed. He has no trade union to plead his case, no tribunal to review his income.
I think that that is a sufficient answer lo Senator Prowse and others who claim that pension rates have kept pace with the steadily increasing cost of living over the last 15 or 16 years. I want to come to the case of superannuated persons at a later stage of my contribution to this debate, because I feel that this is one of the most disgraceful positions from a parliamentary point of view in which we find ourselves. I raised this matter last year and I propose to raise it again.
It is quite true, as the article in the “ Agc “ stated, that unionists can apply to the court. Unionists are far from satisfied on many occasions that they have received wage justice, and that their wages have kept pace with the cost of living and steadily rising prices, but at least they can get from time to time what to them appears to be some minor relief from the creeping inflation that has afflicted this country over the last 15 years, and they have recourse to a court for that purpose. Retailers, of course, can increase their prices and so can producers but the pensioner has no remedy. As the article states, he has no tribunal to which- to appeal. He knows only that each 12 months this Government will bring down a budget that may or may not pay attention to the grievous problems that assail him. In many instances, after a budget has been produced, he is disappointed - bitterly disappointed - with the result.
The second part of the Labour Party’s amendment claims - I think quite rightly - that the Government has perpetuated a sub-standard rate for married pensioners despite glaring anomalies and injustices. There is injustice in the type of thinking that insists that the combined pensions of two persons should be less than double that of one. What would be the attitude of the trade unionist if it were suggested that a married trade unionist should receive less than a single trade unionist? If a court were bold enough or stupid enough or unjust enough to make a declaration in those terms, one can imagine what the result would be. There would be complete industrial chaos in Australia, and rightly so. What would parliamentarians think if Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, Senator Mulvihill and Senator Wood were to receive more than is received by us parliamentarians who are married? The single ones would probably be a little pleased about it, but we would not. We would regard this discrimination as an insult. I have never been able to understand the type of thinking which insists that married pensioner couples should receive less than double a single pension. I am not cavilling in any way at the increase that single pensioners get. I still do not think that it is enough. But I cannot see any justice in the contention that married pensioners should not get exactly the same. Take the case of two widowed sisters of pensionable age who live together. They can share their buying, their expenses, and the rent, and between them they can receive 526 each week as against $23.50 received by a married couple who have to live in exactly the same circumstances. What measuring stick does the Government use when it says that this constitutes justice? What line of reasoning does it employ to justify discrimination between a single pensioner and a married pensioner? I would like some honorable senator on the Government side to rise and say to the Senate: “ We did this for such and such a reason. This is a logical explanation.” I believe that we will have to wait for an extremely long time for any Government senator to be bold enough to undertake such a task. lt is just impossible to justify this form of discrimination between pensioners. The time has come when the Government ought to understand that not only do the pensioners resent this discrimination but that the general public does not believe there is any justice, sense or decency in it.
– Who resents it - the single pensioner or the married pensioner?
– I do not think the single pensioner resents it. Indeed, there is no reason why he should. Because of his position as opposed to that of a married couple, I do not think it would be logical for him to manifest any resentment. But I say that the married pensioners certainly resent it and that they have every right to do so.
N»w I come to the third section of the amendment. This discloses the greatest anomaly of all. I have raised this matter repeatedly. The Senate will recall that last year I said that 1 1 years had elapsed since there had been any increase in the permissible income of pensioners. This year I rise to say that 12 years have elapsed since there has been any such increase. The last increase was in 1954. We are rapidly approaching the year 1967 without there being the slightest indication on the part of the
Government to rectify what I regard, as being one of the most glaring injustices associated with the means test. When I raised this matter last year, quite a number of honorable senators opposite were good enough to say that they believed that I had a point. They were fair enough to say that they personally believed that the permissible income ought to have been increased some considerable time ago. It seems that, if any pre-Budget discussions took place on this subject within their party, theirs was a voice in the wilderness. The Budget did not contain any reference to this matter. So the attitude of the Government is quite clear. It is clear that the Government does not intend to remedy the injustice.
Knowing that some people are skilful enough to twist figures for their own purposes, I want to make it clear that the figures I ani about to put before the Senate have not been conjured up in my own mind but were supplied by the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Sinclair) himself in answer to a question that was asked in another place. Lest it be argued that the permissible income has kept pace with increases in the Federal basic wage since 1954, I propose to tell the Senate what the position actually is. In 1954 the permissible income for a single person, which was $7, represented 30 per cent, of the then Federal basic wage. The permissible income is still $7, but it represents only 21.3 per cent, of the basic wage. As I indicated, those figures were supplied by the Minister for Social Services in answer to a question asked by an honorable member who represents the same Party as I do. If my memory serves me correctly, when I raised this matter last year I received strong support from Senator Gair of the Australian Democratic Labour Party. He, like me, believes that this anomaly ought to be corrected at the earliest possible time. I. am hoping, indeed I am certain, that I will receive the same degree of support on this occasion.
I now return to my quotation from the Melbourne “ Age “ of 10th December which dealt with pensioners and superannuated people. It does not need any great mental exercise on the part of honorable senators to understand that the people who suffer most from failure OVer 1 the past 12 years to increase the permissible income are pen- sioners who are receiving some form of superannuation. To put it in the simplest terms, if a married couple receive more than $14 a week in superannuation, their pension is immediately affected by the excess over $.14. If a single pensioner receives superannuation amounting to more than $7 a week, his pension is reduced accordingly.
Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2.15 p.m.
– At the suspension of the sitting I was advancing a case for an increase in the allowable income of pensioners. I had pointed out that the relevant section of the Social Services Act had not been changed since 1954. I also pointed out - I think not without justification and, I am sure, not without a degree of support from honorable senators opposite - that the anomaly is a grave one. It is of long standing and should have been corrected many years ago. lt seems to me to be utterly unfair and completely illogical. I point out that a married pensioner couple, can have assets totalling $8,040 and, if without other income, each partner can receive a full pension. A married pensioner couple may, in addition, own their own home and the other personal possessions which are detailed in the Act.
I have no quarrel with those provisions, but I ask honorable senators to compare them with the situation of a married couple receiving superannuation payments. If such a married couple has income of $16 a week, they immediately lose $2 of their pension each week as a result. I do not think it can be too strongly stressed that people do not accumulate the right to superannuation without suffering some hardship and a reduction in their ordinary standard of living over a long period of years in accumulating that right. It seems to me that they are penalised at both ends of the swing of the pendulum. They are penalised as a consequence of a reduction in their standard of living because of the amounts contributed each week to a superannuation fund - this is particularly applicable to public servants - and then, having bought that security for their declining years, they are again penalised because a not very grateful Government takes the stand that as the couple have made some provision for their old age, it is absolved from a large degree of responsibility.
The Government says: “ Having accumulated these savings, having reduced your standard of living because of the amounts it cost you in payments to a superannuation fund each week of your working life, because you have had the providence and the foresight to do this, in the case of a single person any income over $7 a week will impinge upon your pension and will result in a reduction of it.” How this practice can be justified is beyond me, Quite frankly, I am getting sick and tired of raising this matter year after year and getting from some honorable senators opposite this response: “ Yes, there is a case. This is an injustice and an anomaly. We recognise the fact.” Honorable senators opposite have said such things when I have raised this matter from time to time.
Earlier I mentioned that Senator Gair made an equally strong plea last year in respect of superannuated people when we were debating the Social Services Bill. He referred to the way in which they are treated in respect of permissible income. On every occasion that the point has been raised, it has met with a response from the Government, but not with any result. These people continue to suffer and, on the present trend, it seems that they will suffer for ever. No Minister has given any assurance to the Senate that Cabinet is considering this matter, or will do something about it, or that the anomaly will be rectified in the foreseeable future. I predict that it is more than likely that I and Senator Gair, and those honorable senators who have taken a personal interest in the question of permissible income, will be coming back again next year making the same plea, advancing the same irrefutable arguments and meeting with the same wooden faced response from a Government which obviously intends to do nothing about it.
I do not want to fall into the error of placing too much emotional emphasis on this question, but quite frankly, as I said earlier, I am becoming increasingly angered each year because of the lack of response by the Government. It is not only a question of my opinion, nor is it only a question of the combined opinion of the Senate.
– There is very strong public feeling against it.
– Exactly. There is a growing public feeling of resentment amongst superannuated people and people who want to earn some money to supplement the old age pension. This justifiable feeling of resentment is transmitted to their families.
– It is a penalty on industry and thrift.
– 1 agree. I have been advancing what I consider is an unanswerable argument: that it is a penalty on thrift and saving. I pointed out that the superannuated pensioner - the retired public servant and others in the same field - is penalised at both ends of the pendulum’s swing. He is penalised by a reduction of his standard of living because of his contributions to a superannuation fund for the whole of his working life, and then penalised at the end of his working life because he so contributed. lt is an outrageous proposition that must be corrected if justice is to be applied to these people. I have spoken with much more feeling than I wished to engender into my speech. I leave the subject with the hope that it will be the last time I shall have to raise it in the Senate.
I turn now to what I consider to be another very serious anomaly, which earlier was referred to by Senator Tangney. That is the question of a wife’s allowance. It is true that in some circumstances a wife of an age pensioner can receive a wife’s allowance if she is not of pensionable age but it is not by any means an automatic entitlement. She becomes entitled to a wife’s allowance if her husband is an invalid. In that case, she establishes the right to be paid an extra amount of $6, providing her husband is over 70 years of age or, alternatively, if he is not, providing it can be established medically that he is not able to earn anything. The wife of a pensioner who cannot fulfil those qualifications and who herself is probably too old for work, is denied the right to receive even a wife’s allowance.
Let us examine the category of couples who qualify. They receive $13 for the husband, and $6 for the wife, making a total of $19 a week. Their position is even worse than that of the pensioner married couple whose plight is bad enough, goodness knows. Not so long ago the Government made an adjustment in this connection - the position had been much worse some years ago - but it is obvious to anybody with a sense of justice that two people cannot live on $19 a week in these days of inflated prices and rising living costs. But how much worse is the position of a married pensioner whose wife is not of pensionable age? Such a couple are forced to live on $13 a week. What an impossible position these people find themselves in.
Against this, no doubt the Government will argue that if the husband has not been medically certified as unfit for work, or if he is not over the age of 70 years or is not an invalid, in theory he can earn some money. However, we must consider the very severely restricted field of employment open to a man over 65 years of age who is already cast off from industry and from most walks of life. We must also consider the potent factor that in most instances, although I admit there are exceptions, men over the age of 65 years are not fit for work. Even if they are fit for work, the opportunities for earning are extremely limited.
– The chances of employment for the wives are almost nil.
– That is so. It is an accepted medical fact that most women in the late 50*s are not fit people. They are not regarded as employable in the true sense of the word. Again, there are exceptions. I am speaking of the majority of such women. I do not know of many private employers who would go out of their way to employ a woman in her late 50’s.
– No doubt she would have reared a big family.
– Yes. Unless a woman is of exceptional physique or capability she is not readily acceptable to employers at that agc.
– The Government does not recognise her right to a pension, but in determining her husband’s qualifications for a pension it considers the combined assets. The Government takes her into account then.
– Exactly. The Government is not too proud to do that, but when it comes to considering the personal circumstances of such a case it is a different thing altogether. I say that this position is an anomalous one. I do not want to knock the Government because of these things. I merely wish to direct attention to them. I have raised matters in respect of which I think the Government has been remiss. 1 also could direct attention to instances in which the Government had done good things in the field of social services. 1 do not want to detract from the credit that is due to the Government on that score, but I want to spend my time in trying to get the Government’s ear concerning aspects of the social services system which I think still call for urgent action. Because 1 have not referred to the good things that the Government has done in the field of social services does not mean that I am not conscious of them. I make that point because I do not want to be regarded as one sided in the contribution I am making.
I come to the last point that 1 want to discuss during my speech this afternoon, lt relates to a matter raised by you, Madam Acting Deputy President, in your speech last night, lt was enlarged upon by Senator Prowse today. I refer to the subject of cottage homes. Senator Prowse took you to task, quite unfairly 1 thought. He said that you had reflected on the capacity and integrity of people who administer cottage home schemes. It is obvious that he had not listened very carefully to what you said last night. I listened to your remarks intently and the impression I gained from the comments you made was that you were expressing (he view that there had been occasions in the past and there could be occasions in the future when some form of disputation occurred between people who went into cottage homes and those who administered the schemes. If my memory serves me properly, all that you suggested was that in the event of this happening the Government, by virtue of the heavy subsidy that it places at the disposal of people who engage in this form of very helpful activity, should exercise a greater degree of regulatory supervision. What is wrong with that? There was no reflection on the integrity of any people concerned with these schemes. I know that such a problem rarely arises in relation to schemes that are administered by church organisations, but there has been disputation on occasion in South Australia. I am not familiar with the rights or wrongs of the occurrences, but I do know that there has been disputation between the administrators on the one hand and the tenants or people who live in the homes on the other in regard to matters affecting the administration of the homes. Without discussing in any way the rights or wrongs of the matter, I say that such things do happen. That was the point you were trying to make. You were suggesting that there should perhaps be a closer look at the relationship between the administration on the one hand and those who live in the homes on the other. You were suggesting also that the Government should, by reason of its subsidy, maintain a greater degree of interest in the way in which the subsidy is spent.
I come to an aspect of the cottage homes scheme which I feel constitutes an anomaly. I refer to the fact that a person who enters one of these homes may claim, for the purposes of legitimate reduction of assets, only up to a ceiling of $2,000. This may have been fair seven or eight years ago, but today, with building costs increasing in each successive year it seems to me that a strong case exists for examination of this ceiling and perhaps recognition of the need to increase it to $3,000 or even $4,000. I know that in many instances in South Australia the cost to people who go into homes of this kind is far in excess of the $2,000 which is regarded by the Department of Social Services as the limit of legitimate reduction of assets. I can see no reason why the amount should not be raised. It could be argued, and no doubt will be argued by Government supporters, that the reason for the ceiling is that the homes are subsidised by the Government. That does not seem to me to be a very reasonable argument to justify the disparity that exists in relation to the legitimate reduction of assets for pension purposes.
Why should there be a difference between the position of a person who goes into a cottage home run by a church organisation, or by a body such as Cottage Homes Incorporated, and that of a person who buys a home unit? In the case of a home unit the legitimate reduction of assets is unlimited, or perhaps I should say it is limited only by the amount of money which the person pays for the unit. In respect of a pensioner homes organisation however, there is u limit of S2.O00, as I have said. Why should there be this discrimination other than because of the fact that the cottage homes are subsidised by the Government? Why should the Government simply use the argument that it subsidises the homes when there is this unfair discrimination between two sets of pensioners? I should like an honorable senator on the Government side of the chamber to give me the reasons for this position. I am sure that the Senate would find them helpful. We ought to be enlightened on some of these questions.
There is no doubt that the pensioners of Australia are very hostile about the treatment they are receiving. In the main, that hostility is directed not so much at what the Government has done as at what it has not done. In the contribution that I have made today I have tried to pinpoint what I believe are the greatest anomalies in the social service field, and I have done so in the hope that the Government will take immediate action to remedy them. It is no good to say that we on this side of the chamber are stirring up the pensioners and trying to arouse in them a degree of resentment against the Government. Of course, the Opposition’s job is to harrass the Government and to make sure that it faces up to its responsibilities. I feel that Senator Gair’s interjection went to the very heart of the situation in this country today. There is an ever growing resentment against the Government, not for what it has done in the social service field but for what it has failed to do.
– I. rise to support the measure that is before the Senate and to make some remarks on social service in Australia. Al the outset, I point out that I have read with great interest the annual report of the Director-General of Social Services, which has drawn attention to the fact that in the year under review there has been once more an improvement in the lot of pensioners, and that their dependants have received greater assistance in several areas of need. As I pay a tribute to that report, 1 want to say a few words in appreciation not only of the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Sinclair) but also of his Department. I refer particularly to the branch of the Department in South Australia, which in common with other South Australian senators, is the one with which I mainly deal. I appreciate the courtesy that is extended to us by the Director of that branch. While
I am referring to the officers of the Department, I think that all South Australians would agree with me when I pay tribute to the late Mr. Prime, with whom all of us have had to deal, especially regarding aged persons homes. He was most understanding, co-operative and helpful. His sudden death a little while ago was a great blow to all of us.
The Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) said in introducing the Bill that its purpose was to give effect to the Government’s decision, as announced in the Budget, “ to increase and otherwise improve certain social service benefits “. I submit to the Senate that the key words are “ increase “ and “ improve “. A glance at the text of the Minister’s speech indicates that this is so. The Bill provides for an increase of $1 in the standard rate of pension; an increase of SI to widows without children; an increase of SI. 50 in the combined pension of a married couple; an increase in the deduction allowed from income for each child for means test purposes; increased benefits for -certain patients on discharge from mental hospitals, and so on.
The increases will apply to more than 820.000 pensioners. More than half of the people of pensionable age in this country will receive increased and improved benefits. Yet. in the face of these increases, the Opposition, in its amendment, has referred to the pensioners’ standard of living being below a reasonable Australian minimum to a sub-standard pension rate for married pensioners and to the Government allowing many other social services to lose their value. 1 suggest that the amendment adopts an entirely negative approach. If the Opposition wishes to offer criticism of or opposition to the Government, it should come up with an amendment based on a positive line of thinking and which spells out in words not only where increases should apply but also where the money is to come from to meet the cost of the increased benefits.
The Minister in her second reading speech said -
I would like to make the point that when measured by variations in the Consumer Price Index, which is generally acknowledged as the best yardstick available, the pension will, with the proposed increases added, have substantially increased in value since the present Government came to office in 1949.
This may appear to be a general statement, but when we are dealing with a wide range of pensions and benefits how else can the matter be argued? Surely it is acknowledged that there is a tremendous number of complexities in any social service and pensions system. 1 suggest that a comparison of the maximum pension rate and the basic wage has a limited value in determining (he adequacy or otherwise of the pension. It may be argued that the only way in which a comparison can be made in this set of circumstances is to look at the case of a pensioner who has absolutely no other resources. But if we do this, I suggest that we ignore the fundamental feature of any social service scheme.
The Social Services Act provides for a maximum rate of income. It also provides for u maximum rate of pension. Pensions arc nol limited to those who are without any income whatsoever. To a greater or a lesser degree, pensions supplement other income up to certain prescribed amounts. This introduces another and complicating factor if we compare the maximum pension rate wilh the basic wage. To my mind, it raises, not so much questions of detail, as are set out in the Bill before us, but rather the general objects of the pensions system. Surely this becomes a problem whenever any government reviews pensions. Do wc have an answer to the question: ls the pensions scheme designed to improve the financial position of the needy or is it designed to provide amounts of money for everyone everywhere? In short, this raises the question of the abolition of the means test, which I do not propose to discuss at this stage.
In practice, we find that the pension provides, at one end of the scale, a means of subsistence for some people, and, at the other end, it supplements a person’s income and enables him to live perhaps a little better than he otherwise could. I refer back to a statement that was made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) when he was the Federal Treasurer. On one occasion during a debate on social services legislation he expressed the view that from the outset the pension had been regarded by both sides of Parliament as a supplement. In the measure that is before us now, the pension as a supplement has once more been increased and improved. This has been the objective of the Government for a number of years.
In 1949 a ceiling of $1,500 was placed on a person’s assets. In 1951 it was increased to $2,000, in 1953 to $2,500, and in 1954 to $3,500. Then, as a further liberalisation, a merged means test was established, which abolished that kind of ceiling altogether. Under the new formula, a pension may be paid until a person’s means as assessed reach a total of $10,800. In addition, there have been increases in the amount of the permissible income. Now permissible income is considered with property under the merged means test, I remind the Senate with emphasis that with each liberalisation, a great many more people have become eligible for pensions. So in my view, the Ministers reference to increased and improved social service benefits certainly holds good and strongly repudiates the amendment that is before us.
I want not so much to discuss all of the measures in the Bill but to refer appreciatively now to the new announcements concerning aged peoples homes. The Aged Persons Homes Act has been praised over and over again. Of course, I join in this praise with other honorable senators. In the 12 years since this scheme was established, some $60 million has been allocated and 24,000 people have been accommodated. Those of us who have had connection with the administration in this regard have long been concerned with certain of the restrictions concerning bed occupancy. On behalf of the many committees throughout the country. Madam Acting Deputy President, we can express appreciation that these restrictions have been lifted. Beds in the nursing accommodation area may be permanently occupied now by particular residents and their former accommodation otherwise occupied. This is of very great assistance indeed. Eligible organisations now are able to provide nursing care under certain conditions.
The whole matter of assistance to aged persons that has carried on in this way has almost developed a new kind of community. It has created not only a new kind of community that lives in this particular type of organisation but also a new kind of community surrounding them, including new kinds of committees, auxiliaries and administrative bodies. I pay tribute to these people who raise money throughout the year and who generally care in a personal way for the people with whom they deal in these homes. There are still waiting lists for entry to aged persons homes. One expresses the hope that these people will all be accommodated in due course. May I make the plea that none of the homes tries to accommodate too many people. Let us plead wilh them to refrain from getting too far away from the very name that they carry. That is, these places are homes; they are not institutions. I have seen homes where committees, because of necessity as their rate of income is low, have endeavoured to place rather too many people on a given area of land.
The other matter that I am concerned about personally as far as the establishment and running of these homes is concerned is that there is a tendency on the part of some people to think that the best place for an aged persons home is far away in the country, far from everywhere, in a quite backwood simply because it is very attractive and possibly lovely gardens can be grown. This may be attractive enough on the surface but I reject this idea as the best possible way of providing accommodation for aged persons. I like to see aged persons homes as near as possible to where the life of the community takes place so that the people in the homes can watch the world go by and also be a part of it. Doctor Wallace of Goulburn, speaking recently at a symposium on the care of the aged, paid tribute to the conditions that exist in Australia. He said that Australia was not behind in the physical care of the elderly. By the same token, he warned that we tended to put them in a category on their own instead of making them part of the community. This underlines the point that I was trying to make a moment ago. ft has been pointed out that in the middle 1970’s we should feel the full impact of the fact that people are living longer, as we know now that they are. This is something that I think we need to be aware of. Homes for the aged as we understand and know them today will make their contribution so that, when the full impact of this increasing elderly group is felt on the nation, these people can be properly accommodated and properly integrated. We talk about this scheme in superlatives. We are extremely proud of it. We praise it. But I do not think that we should let our imagination run away as far as the aged persons homes schema is concerned. A series of homes have been developed around the nation today. All of these homes are new. They look new. Therefore, they are attractive. The idea is relatively new. Therefore, we are all attracted to it. But what will our thinking be towards this very important social problem in about 25 years time? Our social service thinking concerning aged people must always remain and be kept flexible so that we can give the best assistance to our senior citizens.
I was a little sorry to hear Senator Toohey make a reference to The Cottage Homes Incorporated in the way that he did. I suppose that in any community of aged people there will always be points of tension. But from my observation and examination of these cottage homes for the aged in South Australia, I should like to pay a tribute to the people who run them, knowing the scheme as I do. There was no reflection in what the honorable senator said-
– I was not casting any reflection on these homes.
– I have just acknowledged that fact. But the honorable senator pointed out that the Government ought to have machinery whereby it. could come into the situation and endeavour to sort out what, in the view of the honorable senator and in the view of other people, may be a problem relating to administration. Here we would be dealing with the people who have run these homes from the word “ go “. We know that the standard has to be maintained. It is all very well to say that tensions may arise. But I know where tensions have been deliberately stirred up as far as cottage homes for the aged are concerned. No lack of conciliation has existed on the part of the people who run this scheme. At all times they have been ready to discuss with anybody responsible any particular problem that they may have.
As I move towards the close of my contribution to this debate, I wish to make one or two general observations on the matter of social services in the same way that I endeavoured to make some general observations on the whole subject of pensions a litle earlier. In Australia in the last few years we have grown up in an atmosphere where social service, social security and all things related have acquired a much larger degree of importance. Not only a greater amount of our national income but also a greater degree of our national thinking has been directed towards this field. Allied with this situation has been the development of the Commonwealth’s role and responsibility in the sphere of social service. Some of this development during the years has superseded certain forms of social security and social service that up to now have been largely operated by State administration. The very measure before the Senate today indicates that the Commonwealth Government has accepted its continuing responsibility, is making its contribution and is providing the mechanics for the improvement of all social service arrangements.
The increasing importance of social service expenditure in the Commonwealth Budget is allied with a suggestion that I have read in one place that the social security system might well outgrow a matter of being something related entirely to the political situation. In short, the suggestion has been made by another that perhaps certain of our social security arrangements should be organised by a specifically appointed tribunal for this, that or the other purpose. This idea may have certain advantages in terms of knowledge or authority. But 1 do not think that any government which provides considerable and increasing amounts of money in this field would be prepared to let this responsibility go out of its own control. The Government provides the money and must accept its responsibility to the people for what it does. Therefore, I am constrained to express some degree of support for a general suggestion that Senator Prowse put forward in the debate earlier today. This was that perhaps in the not too far distant future the whole setup of social services in Australia might be the subject of some extended review and examination. After all, the social and economic changes that have taken place in Australia during the last 20 years have altered the whole incidence of hardship so that some benefits might even be described as excessive for some purposes and certainly inadequate for others. Such an examination would also throw some light on whether there is any substance in that claim.
Any attempt to appraise the system of social services in Australia would lead to a consideration of what constitutes a social service. Before we concluded our consideration of that question we would need to look at the wide range of fringe benefits, which has increased considerably during the postwar years. A number of principles in relation to social services need to be examined and considered in the total context of our economy, our total social system and our relationships with other countries. I support the measure that is before us. I ask the Senate to reject the amendment that has been moved on behalf of the Opposition. In conclusion, let me, as a South Australian, take the opportunity to pay tribute to another South Australian who will retire from the Parliament towards the end of this year. I refer to the honorable member for Sturt, Sir Keith Wilson, who, over all the years that he has been in this Parliament, has given magnificent leadership in social service work.
Senator McMANUS (Victoria) [2.57.1.- J have never believed that the Parliament is the ideal body to determine the amounts of social services. My belief has been strengthened by the debate to which 1 have been listening. I have always believed that social services should be taken out of politics and that we should have graduated from a situation in which increases in social services appear to be made three months before an election to one in which social services are fixed on a more just and more equitable basis. The party to which I belong has tried to take pensions and social services generally out of politics. For years in this Parliament we have moved amendments to Social Services Bills, first, to lake pensions out of politics by having them determined by a committee of experts with pensioner representatives on it and, secondly, that social services should rise automatically as the cost of living rises. We have failed to have our amendments carried because the Government has opposed them and the Australian Labour Party has also opposed them, although, strangely enough, the second principle is part of the policy of the trade union movement.
This year this issue was dealt with in the debate on the Budget papers. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) indicated that the Australian Labour Party would vote against social services being determined by a committee and also would oppose the principle of social services rising in accordance with rises in the cost of living. In those circumstances, we have decided that on this occasion we will not move our normal amendments but will merely place on record the fact that all of the other parties are opposed to these two principles which, in our opinion, could only give justice to recipients of social service benefits. We propose to turn the other cheek to the Australian Labour Party, despite its refusal to support amendments which we believe would give justice to the pensioners. We have examined its amendment in respect of this Bill. We believe that what it says would be good for the pensioners. Therefore, in a comradely or ecumenical spirit - I do not know what adjective we should apply to our action - we will be supporting the amendment moved on behalf of that Party.
I believe that it is time we stopped dealing with social services on the basis of a 5s. increase here and a 7s. 6d. increase there being given just before an election. It is time we examined the whole field and tried to determine on a broad basis what ought to be done. In the years since the Commonwealth entered the social services field, the age pension, the invalid pension, the sickness benefit, the unemployment benefit, the widow’s pension, the maternity allowance, child endowment, the funeral benefit and other special benefits have been introduced. Some people even describe workers’ compensation as a social service benefit. All of these social services compete at different times for the nod from the Treasurer that will mean an extra two, three or five shillings. All that happens is that we maintain an entirely unsatisfactory system of social services, with all of the people who receive them being dissatisfied and with a steadily increasing social services bill.
Because of the reduction in the birth rate, we face a situation in which the aged section of the community will increase proportionately. Yet no attempt is being made by the Government to look at the whole problem of what we will do to ease the burden on the working section of the community. All that the Government’s thinking seems to envisage is a 5s. or 10s. increase in pensions before the next election. It seems to me that it is time we had a little less of the hole and corner thinking, a little less of politics and a little more of broad salesmanship.
In my opinion, two courses of action are vitally necessary - one in the short term and the other in the long term. The short term action that seems to me to be needed is a beginning of action to get rid of the means test. There should be some action to attack it or to try to whittle it away with a view to its ultimate extinction. This short term action is needed to help the immense body of deserving people in the community, over whom crocodile tears have been wept this afternoon. They look like being the depressed section of the community unless they receive some relief. In the long term, in order to prevent this huge burden of the cost of social services becoming intolerable, we need a contributory national insurance scheme that will make it possible for people to receive their social services as of right and will not leave the whole cost of social services as a burden on the finances of the government of the day. Everybody knows that we must have such a scheme. We are gradually reaching a situation in which no government will be able to afford social services on a non-contributory basis. When people come to Australia from overseas, as they do as migrants attracted by our story that Australia is one of the most socially progressive countries in the world, they are amazed and staggered. They cannot believe that a country which claims to be as progressive as Australia claims to be has not a contributory national insurance scheme.
The present system, under which we do not have any short term action to deal with the means test and we do not have any long term proposals for a contributory national insurance scheme, means immense injustice to one of the most deserving sections of the community. Frankly, I cannot understand the attitude of the Government on this matter because the great bulk of those people, in my opinion, are people who have been Liberal voters for years. They are being left for dead by the Government they have supported. It is prepared to fake advantage of the fact that these people who have supported the Government for years have been thrifty. They have tried to provide for their old age by saving and by superannuation schemes but the Government denies them now, in a period of inflation, the relief they have to have if they ure to keep going. 1 can understand other political parties supporting the claims of other sections of the community when they gel most of the votes from them but it amazes me to find the Liberal Party acting with grave injustice towards a section of the community which has provided it with loyalty and votes over many years.
– The honorable senator should leave politics out of this mailer.
– I am simply pitting the case for these people. 1 know it hurts Senator Marriott but he is not in the position of these people. Senator Marriott is on a good thing. 1 can understand his indifference to the people who helped to pui him into Parliament - people who through superannuation or insurance have tried to provide for their old age bin now. under inflation, are in a desperate situation without the frings benefits an ordinary pensioner receives. When somebody tries to pui their case. Senator Marriott adopts an attitude of criticism that anybody should demand justice for them.
Look al the position of these people. They began to pay superannuation 30 or 40 years ago. They began then to save their money They paid into various schemes pounds which were worth something. The £10 or .£12 or £100 a year they paid in 1929. 1930 or 1.931 were worth something. The money had value. What is the situation today? The pounds they are getting back have lost something like 75 per cent, of a, us. In these circumstances, these people on small fixed incomes wilh all these charges such as rales, taxes, services and hospital treatment are gelling into a desperate situation.
What is the Government doing about it? What are we all doing about il? 1 ask that question because we must all accept the responsibility. I challenge any member in this Senate to rise and say that the Party he supports has not at some time gone to the polls and promised to take action to alleviate the means lest and eventually abolish it. I look around and not one honorable senator is prepared to rise. Honorable senators know there is not a party in this House that has not promised the people on more than one occasion that it will take action or will support action to alleviate the means test wilh a vi,ew to its ultimate abolition. Why is it. therefore, when everybody is unanimous that it ought to be done, that nobody takes action? 1 think there is food for thought there. lt appears to mp that these people are an estimable section of the community but up to date they have been so unselfish that they have not be,en organising in their own interests. Because they have been unselfish and have not been organising in their own interests, they have been left for dead. I can only say lo these people that if they want redress they should organise, and if they organise they will get redress. For loo long they have been prepared to take what has been given to them and now, through inflation, their situation has become so desperate that they have to take action. I hope they take action and if they do, knowing something about politics, I believe they will get redress.
I want to conclude by saying something about a deserving section of the community which com-s under the social services legislation. I have had correspondence from a medically qualified gentleman who is devoting his life to the service of the paraplegics and quadraplegics. He has put up a very strong case on a number of matters, some of which [ shall not refer to here because it would not be appropriate. They are more appropriate to a discussion of matters associated with the Department of Health. But in regard to invalid pensions, this gentleman has made some remarks which 1 take the liberty to quote. He has stated -
The current invalid pension is SI2 u week. Added to this there are certain privileges such as concessional public transport which, of course, is valueless to the paraplegic, free public hospitalisation (but this may bc a doubled-edge weapon in thai it may cause beels in public hospitals to become blocked by patients who require nursing care rather than active medical treatment) and a limited free ambulance service (i.e emergency trips lo hospital). The pension may bc increased by S2 a week if the patient is living out of hospital. Thi’ rate of pension may bc criticised from a mim’ of grounds:
This pension is quite inadequate in nearly all cases, particularly if the patient has a wife and family to care for. Often the wife is unable to go out to work to supplement the pension (even if she were able to do this without diminishing the pension by her earnings), because she has to work at home to care for her husband and children.
If the pensioner should earn more than $6 a week, he thereby jeopardises his invalid pension. This is quite unrealistic and not only provides no incentive for a handicapped person to undertake useful remunerative occupation, but the fringe benefits of the pension, such as free drugs, hospitalisation and ambulance service, are often more valuable than the few dollars that the patient might be able to earn.
The pension is quite inadequate for a patient who is trying to educate himself to a higher level of employment than that which he had prior to his accident. The lack of realism lies in the fact that the paraplegic patient who is educating himself must, due to his disability, run a car, and for any person to try to live and run a car on the invalid pension is impossible.
That, of course, is only one example of a number of groups who have special claims but 1 mention it because not a great deal has been said about these people and it is time some attention was directed to the special claims they have for relief. I conclude, therefore, by saying again that we have boasted for years in Australia that we are a socially progressive people. I do not believe it. We will not be a socially progressive people until, like all the other major countries in the world, we have a national insurance scheme. I read the other day a statement of the main world countries which did not have such a scheme. I found we were lined up with some of the Arabian countries, for example. It is an amazing circumstance that we in Australia appear alongside the most socially backward countries in the world in that we do not have a proper social insurance scheme.
Once again I challenge every party represented in this House: You have all made the people promises, time after time, that you will act on the means test with a view to its eventual abolition. What are you doing, especially the Government, to redeem your promises? If the Government brought in legislation on the matter, as the Government has promised to do, it would get a unanimous vote. The Democratic Labour Party will wait for the legislation and vote for it. I understand the Australian Labour Party will do so, too. What are Government senators going to do about it?
– There are a few observations I want to make on the Bill before the Senate. Like the curate’s egg, the Bill is good in parts only. It is reasonably good for what it contains but it is very bad for what it omits. I had proposed to deal with the question of national insurance but Senator McManus has dealt with this very adequately. It is a reflection on all governments of this country that we have not in Australia at the present time a national insurance scheme. Particularly is it a reflection on the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, who was so adamant on this question that he resigned from a Cabinet because it had repudiated a promise to introduce a national insurance scheme. Then, having had the power of government for 16 years, he and his Government made no effort to introduce a national insurance scheme.
I agree entirely with my colleague, Senator McManus, when he says that we have not anything to be very proud of in our present social services set up. In view of the great measure of timidity about a national insurance scheme that I detect from speeches of some Government supporters today, it is easily understood why their Government in the last 16 or 17 years has failed to do anything constructive or positive in this connection. Listening to Senator Davidson and Senator Prowse earlier in the day, I understood that they felt that to have a national insurance scheme and to deduct from the wages of people a contribution to the scheme, would involve taking money from people when they needed it most and then, when the time came to collect their benefit, the value of the money would be lost. Senator McManus pointed out that this position already exists. That is the position of the person who makes a sacrifice to contribute to a superannuation scheme, whether a government scheme or a private scheme.
– The person has no option.
– The person has no option but to make that sacrifice of contribution at the same time as he is required, in common with everyone else, to pay taxes. When the time comes for him to receive a benefit from his sacrifice or contribution, he discovers it is an impediment to his getting even a partial pension.
– That has been the spirit of individual insurance, too.
– Yes. A man who insured himself 30 or 40 years ago for £1,000 could have said: “ When I draw that, I shall be able to buy a house and a motor car.” At that time one could have bought a house - and a good one - for £750 and a car for £400 or £500. One could buy neither today for that amount. One could not even buy a block of land.
– In those days one could buy a Model A Ford for £295.
– That is right. To those people who express timidity about national insurance, let me for a moment describe a scheme that operated in Queensland for years, about the details of which Senator Benn would know more than I do. Back in the days of, I think, the Theodore Government, a scheme known as the Unemployment Insurance Scheme was introduced. As the name implies, it was a scheme to provide insurance against unemployment. It was regarded by overseas authorities - men like Mr. Ince, who came to Australia as a representative of the United Kingdom Government - as one of the greatest pieces of social legislation ever introduced. Under that scheme, which operated on the old friendly society basis, those who bad continuity of employment paid for those who had not continuity of employment - casual workers and persons who followed industries of a casual character. The worker contributed 6d. a week, his employer contributed 6d. a week, and the Government subsidised the scheme to the extent of 6d. a week for each employee.
– Whose scheme was this?
– It was a scheme of a Queensland Labour Government. I believe that Theodore was the Premier at the time. That scheme operated until the Commonwealth invaded the field of social services and finished up with a very handsome credit.
– Two million pounds.
– A credit of £2 million. When men became unemployed, they did not go to the Department of Labour to pick up a charity. They went there to get what they had contributed for, what they were entitled to. I mention that merely to illustrate a principle. No worker complained about contributing 6d. a week. The employers, too, were content to contribute. I believe that a principle similar to that should have been the basis of a national insurance scheme years ago. We are years behind the times. Last night, when Senator Tangney was speaking, making a very extensive and thorough survey of the deficiencies and anomalies of our social service system, an English lady visitor to this country, who was seated in the gallery, was amazed to learn that we still had a means test in Australia. She was amazed to learn that it was still operating.
– There is not one in New Zealand, either.
– No. I listened to Senator Davidson and Senator Prowse say that the basis of a social service scheme was to give as much as we could to the most needy. I suppose that to an extent that is right in principle. But is it intended to be a penalty on the thrifty? Is it intended to penalise people who are provident and thoughtful enough to make provision for their old age, as against those who have no regard for the future, who will expend everything that they earn and, having no assets, qualify for the pension? This matter was brought home to me very forcefully during the period when I was a member of a government. I was asked to make presentations to two officers, both of whom had completed 50 years service in a department. They joined the Public Service on the same day and they were of the same age. Their rises in the Service synchronised. They completed their service on the same day because their birthdays were at about the same time. One man had subscribed for only the minimum number of units of superannuation that the Superannuation Act required. The other man had made a sacrifice and taken more than that. The first man was married and had no family. The home in which he lived was mortgaged to the Public Curator. The second man reared a family of four and educated them. But because he had contributed more than he was required to contribute for superannuation and had a little investment in government loans, he could not get a pension. His colleague, who owned nothing and had reared no family, could walk down to the pension office, make an application and qualify for a pension. That is a picture of what is going on every day. 1 recently met a man in a street who had occupied a very important position in the Queensland Public Service before his retirement. His income for the last taxation assessment was £1,150. Of that sum, £600 was superannuation and the rest consisted of small investments, mostly in government loans. When judged by present day standards, £1,150 is not a princely income. This man showed me his taxation assessment. He had to pay .ax amounting to £148, which meant that his income was reduced by approximately £3 a week. He did not receive any fringe benefits in respect of a telephone, a television set or a radio set, nor was he entitled to the medical service that a pensioner gets. 1 am not complaining about what the pensioner gets, but I am pointing out just how disadvantaged are people who are in receipt of superannuation.
I think enough has been said by Senator McManus, myself and other speakers on this matter. But when will the Government get around to doing something positive about it? The Government has been tinkering with this matter for years. If it does not do something very soon, because of the reaction of the public generally the social service issue will crush any government that is in power. With the exception of one or two cases, the value of pensions generally has deteriorated. Nothing that Senator Davidson or anybody else can say will refute that statement. The evidence to the contrary is indisputable.
The Minister’s second reading speech is good, even though, as I have said, having regard to the fact that two years have elapsed since an increase in pensions was granted, the proposed increase of $1 a week is puny and weak. The provisions relating to some of the other allowances and the improvement in the pensions payable to widows are very good. The improvement in conditions applicable to the mentally sick are to bc commended. I could never underhand why the Government penalised the mentally sick for so long. In the past, im mediately a person became mentally sick and was admitted to an institution, his pension ceased. Not only was the pensioner penalised, but in many cases the poor relatives of the mental patient were penalised. Many of them were in the pension class. When they visited their sick relative, naturally they felt obliged to take small parcels of fruit, sweets and other dainties. The cost of those parcels, plus transport charges, came out of their miserable pension. And, as 1 have said, the sick relative was denied any recognition at all. That went on for a long time. Conferences of .Premiers debated this matter year in and year out but got nowhere with Federal governments. J commend the Minister and the Government for having remedied the position to some extent. 1 acknowledge what they are doing. But very much more needs to be done in the interests of the country and to ensure that justice is extended to other recipients of social service benefits.
I would like to make the point that when measured by variations in the consumer price index, which is generally acknowledged as the best yardstick available, the pension will, with the proposed increases added, have substantially increased in value since the present Government came to office in 1949.
With all respect I ask the Minister whether, having said that, she is prepared to relate the consumer price index to child endowment, the maternity allowance and other social service benefits. If she is, we should see a very marked improvement in the present rates of payment. Let us consider child endowment. In 1949 the child endowment payment represented 19.4 per cent, of the then basic wage, but in 1966 it represents only 9.7 per cent, of the current basic wage. The Vernon Committee said in its report -
Expressed in real terms, that is adjusted lor the rise in the consumer price index, the endowment receivable by a family with three children has declined by about 30 per cent, since 1948-4!!.
Let us be consistent. If it is advantageous to the Minister and the Government to draw attention to the favorable relationship that the age pension bears to the consumer price index, let us apply the same yardstick - the Minister says there is no better - to other social service benefits. There has been a deterioration even in the value of repatriation pensions. In 1949-50 the special rate pension was equivalent to 101 per cent, and the general rate pension to 51 per cent, of the basic wage. Today the special rate pension represents 92 per cent, of the basic wage and the general rate pension 39 per cent. 1 return to the subject of child endowment. To my mind, it is very important, because I am concerned about the value of the family unit to our community, lt may be hackneyed to say that the family is the pivot of our society, but it is still an undeniable and indisputable fact. At a time when the birthrate is falling alarmingly, we aTe doing absolutely nothing to improve the position. I am too much of a realist to believe that the main reasons for the decline in the birthrate are economic. There are many factors and many reasons, but I am realistic enough to appreciate that many family units are restricting the size of their families for economic reasons; those parents who are having children are greatly embarrassed because of the disadvantages they suffer when compared with unmarried men and people with smaller families.
In 1964 an increase was granted in child endowment. That was the last increase. All honorable senators know that child endowment was increased by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) when he was Minister for Labour in 1941. In his second reading speech Mr. Holt quoted the remarks of the Younger Pitt in 1795 as follows -
If the minimum wage is to be fixed upon the standard of a small family, those will not enjoy the benefit of it for whose relief it is intended. What measures then can be found to supply the defect? Let us make relief in cases where there are a number of children a matter of right and honour, instead of a ground for opprobrium and contempt . . .
Mr. Holt went on to say ;
It is not claimed that this scheme will have any spectacular effect on the birthrate, but to the extent that it relieves the economic pressure on the parents of large families, its tendency must be in the direction of improving the rate.
Mr. John Curtin welcomed the measure and said -
We ought not to regard it as economically inevitable that there must be hardship if there are two, three or more children in a family.
Since 1941 the rates of child endowment have been varied five times. The payment of 5s. a week for second and subsequent children was increased to 7s. 6d. a week in June 1945, and to 10s. a week in November 1948. In June 1950 it was decided to pay 5s. a week for the first child, as well as 10s. a week for the second and subsequent children. For the next 14 years the Menzies Government forgot child endowment. In January 1964 the rate for the third and latter children was increased from 10s. to 15s. a week. In 1964 an increase was overdue, and the increase granted did nothing to restore the value of child endowment which had fallen drastically in the intervening years. The fall in value can be demonstrated by comparing the payments in respect of three, four and five children families with the basic wage. Some honorable senators opposite do not like relating pensions to the basic wage, or even to the consumer price index: but when it suits them, of course, they employ it as an excellent yardstick.
In 1941, child endowment of 5s. a week for a three child family represented 11.4 per cent, of the basic wage. In 1965 child endowment for such a family represented 9.74 per cent, of the basic wage. In 1941 child endowment for a four child family was .17.24 per cent, of the basic wage. In 1965 it was 1.4.61 per cent. For a five child family child endowment was 22.99 per cent, of the basic wage in 1941. Today it is 19.48 per cent. I think most honorable senators agree with me as to the importance of the family unit and the necessity to do something for the family man. Even though child endowment may not have any significant effect on the birthrate, the fact remains that those people who are in most need of assistance will be getting something as against those people who are not in such great need. I agree with other honorable senators on this side of the chamber who have said that the Government is neglecting sections of the community who are worthy of very sympathetic consideration. Unless we have regard to the families in the community it is a very poor lookout for our future.
Considerable help is given in the field of education. A marked improvement has occurred and I applaud all governments for their aid to independent schools and the sacrifices they are making to maintain a progressive and modern education system of high standard. However, I ask honorable senators to heed the call of the people who are in need. 1 have a schedule which shows very clearly the deterioration in pensions and child endowment. The maternity allowance, as I said in the Senate recently, has not been altered since 1943. It is true that it is not subject to a means test. Child endowment is not subject to a means test, which is a good thing I suppose, if we are arguing against means tests. But let us be consistent. If, in 1943, the Government of the day believed that an amount of £15 or thereabouts was justified as a maternity allowance, surely 23 years later there is more than reasonable justification for an increase in that amount. If not, why not withdraw it and say: “ We have given you this allowance under false pretences. You are not entitled to it. We do not think you arc worth it.”?
I ask the Government not to allow the maternity allowance to remain static. Honorable senators who are realistic appreciate that the charges for medical services and services in public hospitals - perhaps in all States with the exception of Queensland - have gone up like a rocket. All these things cannot just be disregarded. We should not say to the mother of a child: “ We used to give you ,£15 in 1943 and we still give you £15 in 1966. We think that is more than enough.” I have spoken for longer than I intended to speak, but the subject of social services should attract the interest and the concern of every member of the Senate and indeed of the Parliament. Those of us who have had much experience in the public life of this country know that there are many deficiencies and anomalies in the social service system. Too frequently have members of both sides of the Parliament expressed to me the difficulty they experience in understanding why the Department of Social Services does this or does that.
It appears to me that too much squeeze is put on the person who is industrious enough to go out and earn a pound or two. We should encourage people to be indus trious, just as we should encourage people to be reasonably frugal and lo provide for their old age, but we are not doing that. Through the means lest that we apply, we are saying: “ Don’t be damned fools. Don’t save your money. Don’t invest any more of your money in superannuation than you have to. Don’t invest your money because if you do you will disqualify yourself for a pension. Spend it, waste it on overseas trips, on the horses, on. grog and on other things. When you have finished your active life as a public servant or in some other calling, you will be free to go along and apply for a pension without any fear of your application being rejected.” That is what we are saying to the people of the community who are being penalised and about whom Senator McManus and other honorable senators have spoken. 1 am not referring to the very rich people but to the people with limited incomes. Many of them insured for their old age by contributing to superannuation schemes. They worked out that on retirement their income would be in the vicinity of £20 or £25 a week. That was a lot of money when they commenced to contribute vo the superannuation schemes but it. is not worth very much today because of the inflation that has occurred.
I appeal to the Minister for Housing, who represents the Minister for Social Services in this place, to bring all her charm and influence to bear on the Government. First. I suggest that she dedicate herself to achieving a national insurance scheme. This is something from which Ministers for Social Services and former Governments have run away. While the present system of social services exist, she should dedicate herself to bringing about some measure of justice for family people as well as for the aged and invalid recipients of pensions. I have been critical in some respects of the social services system. Let me conclude by congratulating Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin on the manner in which she is administering the Housing portfolio. I am fair enough to say that the contents of the Social Services Bill which we are discussing, while being pretty anaemic in some respects, provide for a considerable improvement in others.
– Madam Acting Deputy President, under Standing Order No. 410 I. wish to speak in explanation of remarks that were made this morning by
Senator Prowse. I could not do so earlier as I happened to be in the Chair.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wedgwood). - Does the honorable senator claim to have been misrepresented?
– Yes. I wish to explain the remarks I made last night. I would not like it to be thought that in my remarks I had sought to detract in any way from the value of the work that is done by the people in charge of old peoples homes, or to detract in any way from the value of the Aged Persons Homes Act. Owing to the fact that I was diverted by an interjection from Senator Prowse during my speech, I was rather unfortunate in the choice of words with which I replied to him. I said that I was not game to say something. That choice of words was perhaps unfortunate, but I think it can be understood in the light of the fact that an interjection was made.
I was really seeking from the Minister information with regard to those organisations which are not church organisations. I pay a tribute to the church organisations which are not benevolent organisations according to the Act and not servicemen’s organisations according to the Act. I was referring to other nebulous organisations which have received their charter from the Governor-General. I wished to know what those organisations were and how much money had been expended on them. Also, I was trying to obtain information, which I think is due to the Senate when the expenditure of such large sums of public money is involved, concerning the number of institutions which demand the payment of a donation before admission to the homes can be assured. I also wanted to know the number of such homes in respect of which no lump sum payment is required. That, I think, is in accordance with the spirit of the Aged Persons Homes Act to which we all agreed when it was introduced by the Government some years ago.
Where there is expenditure by the Department of Social Services of a very large sum of money - in this instance $60 million has been spent over the last 12 years - I feel that we as a Parliament are entitled to know how that money has been expended. I also feel that the Government should have some say in the demands made by organisations in this way.
– I rise on a point of order. Is Senator Tangney saying (hat she was misrepresented, or is she saying in fact that her choice of words caused a wrong construction to be placed on her remarks? Would the honorable senator please make that clear?
– Standing Order No. 410 states - a Senator who has spoken to a question may again be heard, to explain himself in regard to some material pan of his speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood, but shall not introduce any new matter, or interrupt any senator in possession of the Chair, and no debatable mailer shall be brought forward or debate arise upon such explanation
– But everything we say is misunderstood by the other side.
– Yes.
– 1 ask for your ruling on my point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. Senator Tangney suggested that Senator Prowse had misrepresented her remarks. I am suggesting that in fact “ Hansard “ will show that Senator Tangney has said that her use of words was unfortunate. Is there any point in the honorable senator speaking again?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! There is no substance in the point of order. Under the Standing Orders, Senator Tangney is entitled to make an explanation.
– Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. There is very little else that I want to say. I feel that Senator Prowse misunderstood what I was saying. I would not like the impression to go forth that 1 was belittling the work that is done by the great majority of the persons who are concerned with the welfare of our old people and with the homes schemes, particularly church bodies and other benevolent bodies. I have a very clear understanding of their work. I have visited many of the homes and have seen what they are doing. These are matters upon which the community should be enlightened and on which there is doubt in some quarters. As was pointed out this afternoon, misunderstandings do arise. It is said that some of these misunderstandings have been engendered by some nebulous people. I do not know. If there are misunderstandings about the conduct of these homes, I think that it is up to this Government to ensure that they are ironed out amicably. The causes should be made known to the Parliament.
– I shall not be long, but I feel that I must make my position clear before I vote. All 1 can do is virtually to reiterate what 1 said in my speech during the debate on the Budget. I will never be happy wilh what the Government does regarding social services until two matters have been rectified. Both of them have been mentioned by Senator Gair this afternoon, and I have referred to them in every speech that I have made in Budget debates and in debates on social service legislation. The first point is that social service payments must be tied to the basic wage. 1 do not mind whether we call it the basic wage or the Consumer Price Index. Surely if it is good enough for members of Parliament to have a superannuation scheme of their own without any means test being applied, it is good enough for pensioners. The Government is lopsided in ils attitude towards social services in that no means test is applied for child endowment or the maternity allowance. The Government applies the means test whenever it suits it to do so. It treats the means test as a political football.
Very rarely is an increase made in pensions unless there is an election pending. One only has to search through the files to discover that. If an election is pending the Government says: “ Let us give a bit more. We might get another vote or two.” How can Government supporters demean themselves to that extent? lt is a waste of our time to ask for anything to be done; the Government hardly ever accedes to our requests. Admittedly, because we have persisted with our request in relation to mental patients, a ray of hope has appeared there, in that the Government will now pay pensions to these people for the last three months of their stay in a mental hospital, lt has taken us five years to get that much, but I suppose we should be grateful. If we keep on asking for things, they must drift through, but we feel that they drift through, not because of the justice of the cause, but because of the political background to the matter.
I think it was Senator McManus who, very rightly and properly, snubbed a Government senator regarding pensions. Senator McManus pointed out that the honorable senator was safe. He knew full well that when he retired he would receive a pension paid for by the taxpayers. Honorable senators opposite should not kid themselves that they pay for their pension. Five pounds per week is really nothing to what they will receive when they retire.
– “lt depends on how long we are here.
– All right. You are happy with that position, but you will not do anything for people who are in need.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman). - Order! The honorable senator will address the Chair.
– Is Senator Turnbull accepting the pension?
– I am not getting it. However, it is beside the point whether or not .1 will accept it. There is no reason why I should not fight for others to get a pension. Is Senator Webster prepared to fight for that? ls he prepared to cross the floor and vote against the Government? If he does that, f will believe in what he is saying. Let him do that instead of trying to sneer at what I may or may not get in the future. Before I can get a parliamentary pension, I have to be elected again.
– The Government makes the best use of the means test.
– The Government does not make the best use of it. It uses it whenever it wants to do so. If honorable senators opposite tie pensions to the Consumer Price Index or the basic wage, I will believe that justice has been done.
The second thing that I have always fought for is a national superannuation scheme and the abolition of the means test. This would involve the abolition of the horrid word “ pensioner “. How would honorable senators opposite like to be told that they are pensioners when they receive superannuation payments from the Government? They do not call themselves pensioners. It is a terrible word, and I think it is time that it was abolished from our language, lt is time that we had national superannuation. Why cannot we, as humanitarians in this chamber, join together and form a joint committee or some other sort of committee to investigate the whole social services position? Unless we take social services out of politics, we cannot do justice. Let us provide reasonable and proper social services so that all people will get their just dues.
I have never agreed with the proposition that because a man is wealthy he is not entitled to a pension or national superannuation. When I was Minister for Health in Tasmania I was attacked when I said that the rich could enter Tasmanian general hospitals without a means test being applied. Where there are no medical and hospital benefit schemes, the wealthy people provide the money for the hospitals. If, through taxation, they pay to keep the hospitals going, they are entitled to go into them. The same argument applies to what we call pensions. The wealthy people pay the taxes that provide the money for pensions. If they do that, they also are entitled to receive pensions. Otherwise, there is no justice whatsoever.
I plead with Government supporters to shake up the Government, but I know that it will do only what it wants to do. Cannot we adopt a commonsense attitude towards social services? Cannot we agree to the establishment of a joint committee of both Houses of the Parliament to investigate what pensions should be paid and whether they should be tied to the basic wage, the Consumer Price Index or parliamentary salaries? We do not hesitate to increase our own salaries and our own superannuation. I would be happy if the Government tied pensions to parliamentary salaries, although, admittedly, recent increases in parliamentary salaries have not been as great, proportionately, as increases in the basic wage. As I have said before, in the last six or eight years the basic wage has increased by 120 per cent, but parliamentary salaries have increased by only 90 per cent. But has the Government increased pensions to the same degree? Of course it has not.
I plead with the Government to consider my suggestion for the establishment of a committee - I do not mind whether it is an outside committee or a parliamentary committee - to go into the whole question of what is a fair and proper basis to adopt in assessing pensions and what they should be tied to. Instead of doing that, the Government allows a wrangle about pensions to take place year after year and makes a political football of the subject. It hopes that if it increases pensions in an election year it will receive a few more votes.
Finally, I hope that we shall see - even Government supporters are asking for this - the establishment of a national superannuation scheme so that the working people in the community will be entitled to something when they retire from their businesses. I believe that the amendment moved by the Opposition has some basis of truth, but I do not think it goes far enough. It does not refer to national superannuation and it does not say what pensions should be tied to. Nevertheless, if we accept the amendment it might shake the Government into doing something to rectify the present position.
[4.3]. - in reply - I rise to reply to the debate, which is now concluding, on the second reading speech which I had the privilege of presenting to this chamber on behalf of the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Sinclair). Although there has been discussion and argument from both sides of the chamber and varying political views have been expressed, I believe that the thing that stands out is that ail honorable senators are sincerely concerned about those people in the community who are in need of assistance. No matter from which side of the chamber one speaks, it must be recognised that my colleague in another place, the Minister for Social Services, has always shown a real desire to do what he can for those who come within the social service provision. This Government, ever since it has come into office, has had a proud record in the social service field. I cross swords with honorable senators opposite who say that nothing has been done by this Government.
– I did not say that.
– It was very close to it. We have a document here which shows the Government’s record in social services. I believe that we can feel proud of the record. It has been stated today that nothing has ever been done to liberalise the means test. 01: course something has been done. This is part of the social service history of this Government. We all want to see more provided in the social service field. Government: supporters have expressed their desire to see this done. I know that the Department and the Minister, as well as every Government supporter, will continue to see that more and more assistance is given where it is needed.
– Having said that, will the Minister explain why the maternity allowance has not been increased since 1943 and answer my criticism wilh regard to child endowment?
– Mr. Deputy President, Senator Gair and 1 have known each other for a long time. He has had plenty of time to deliver his speech this afternoon. I listened to him very patiently. I would suggest to the honorable senator that he return the compliment. I will be most happy to pass his opinions on to the Minister for Social Services. Let me now, with the greatest goodwill, continue to deal with some of the matters that have been raised in this debate.
I think all honorable senators appreciated the personal explanation from Senator Tangney this afternoon. It made me feel very pleased indeed that I had understood her remarks and that I had endeavoured to obtain an answer to her question before she made her personal explanation. Senator Tangney’s question was in connection with the aged persons homes scheme. As she rightly said, finance is available under the Aged Persons Homes Act to religious, charitable, benevolent or. ex-service organisations providing accommodation for aged persons. In addition, the Governor-General may approve an organisation outside the categories that I have mentioned for the purposes of the Act. I think that this was the main point in the honorable senator’s question. An example is a friendly society which restricts benefits to members and cannot normally receive registration as a charitable organisation. It would probably receive the approval of the Governor-General for the purposes of this Act. The honorable senator wished to know the number of grants that had been provided in this way, if I understood her speech correctly. There have been 50 grants lo organisations approved by the Governor-General. They have been made to 25 such organisations. These organisations were 13 charitable trusts, 6 friendly societies and 6 other bodies such as Rotary Clubs and Country Women’s Associations in various States.
While 1 am on the subject of aged persons homes, f want to mention that the Government plays no part in the administration of these matters. This is purely a matter for the organisations running the homes. There is no government interference in this regard. These are recognised organisations. Church and charitable organisations such as those mentioned by Senator Tangney are in this category. The Government recognises the work that they are doing. In effect, the Government says to these organisations: “ We assist you on a financial basis. You carry on with the administration.”
I listened today and indeed last night to the plea in relation to the abolition of the means test. Interest was shown on both sides of the Senate in this matter. In particular, honorable senators were interested in the stage being reached when there would be no means test. If I understood Senator Tangney correctly, she was concerned that all persons could enter aged persons homes. I think that my friend rather felt that these homes should be only for people on a pension. 1 may have misunderstood her remarks. But surely here is an example where no difference is caused by a means test. Those people outside the pension benefits field who are very badly in need of the kind of assistance that is offered in these homes are able to receive it. They seek security, care and somewhere to live. These people may not be receiving pensions but they are in this section of the community of which so much has been said today. They receive the benefit of living in these excellent places. The fact that they can live in age persons homes is, I believe, a very special benefit which we should appreciate and recognise in the community.
– A person has to be wealthy before he can get into a home.
– That is not so. I think that statement is unfair to these great people - members of church and charity bodies - who dedicate their lives to this great work for our senior citizens. I deplore this kind of attack in this place on these people. They are dedicated men and women working for great Christian charitable organisations. It is wrong that this inference should be drawn.
– A person still needs X. 1 ,000 to gel into a home.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order!
– Lel mc return to the information that I. on behalf of the Minister for Social Services whom I represent in this chamber, have endeavoured to obtain for’ honorable senators in relation to the matters that they have discussed today. I am endeavouring to follow up some of the points made and give answers to them. Senator Tangney asked also whether J. could find out for her the number of deserted wives receiving the widows’ pension. At the 30th June 1966 this figure stood at 12,937.
A fair amount of discussion has taken place today on the problem of people in receipt of superannuation. Senator Toohey spoke on this matter as did honorable senators on both sides of the Senate. I feel that there are some points in relation to this matter that should be placed on record. A single person of pensionable age will qualify lor an age pension, assuming he has no property and his income is less than $20 per week. A superannuation pensioner in this position will receive an age pension payment plus the fringe benefits that go with it. For a married pensioner couple the comparable figure to the $20 that applies to a single pensioner is $37.50 per week. Each increase in the rate of pension, such as we see in this legislation before us, raises the upper limit of means that a person may have before becoming disentitled to receive the pension. 1 think that this is a point which the Senate should recognise and appreciate when considering the Bill that we are debating.
This provision in the Bill results in more people qualifying for the pension payment and also the fringe benefits that go with it. This provision is important, lt is of benefit and assistance to the people to whom it applies. There is a further point that I think should be put on record because of the mention made during the debate of Commonwealth superannuation. The Commonwealth Government subsidises Com monwealth superannuation to the extent of some five-sevenths ot the pension payable. This probably represents more than if the full social service pension were payable to the average superanuitant. In addition, contributions to a superannuation fund are allowable deductions for income tax purposes. 1 think that those remarks answer some of the particular points raised by speakers during this debate.
In connection with the liberalisation of the means test, I want to mention also that this Bill provides for an increase in the deduction allowed for each child in respect of a pensioner’s income for means test purposes. I think that this is another benefit that we should all recognise and appreciate. As I said earlier, this Government has indeed a worthy record with regard to the liberalisation of the means test. Of course, as has been said by my colleagues on this side, there is a desire on the part of the Government that more and more benefit should be given in this field. 1 believe that the following figures might be of interest to honorable senators: In .1949, the number of persons receiving the age pension constituted 39.1 per cent. of the total number of persons of pensionable age. That proportion has now increased to 53.2 per cent. This, I believe, is a remarkable increase. It has taken place during the years that this Government has been in office. Not only has there been an extension in the range of eligibility. The amount of the pension has been considerably increased and, as the pension is increased, the limit on the means that a person may have before becoming entitled to the pension is lifted also. In this way the field of eligibility is widened further. So, in short, we see that more people are eligible for the increased pension benefits.
I thank all those honorable senators who have given to the Senate really thoughtful speeches on a matter that concerns us all. We have a sincere desire to help people in the community who need assistance. As the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, I will have the greatest pleasure in ensuring that he knows of the thoughts that have been put forward in regard to the individual desires of honorable senators. Above all, 1 will have the greatest pleasure in acquainting him of the very real interest of all honorable senators in the well being of their fellow Australians. I inform the Senate that the Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the Opposition.
Question put -
That the words proposed to be added (Senator Tangney’s amendment) be added.
The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman.)
AYES: 23
NOES: 23
Majority . . . . Nil
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 836
Debate resumed from 27th September (vide page 740), on motion by Senator Anderson -
That the Bill be now read a second time.
.-I wish to refer briefly to what appears to me to be a very serious anomaly in regard to seamen’s war pensions. This anomaly has been brought to my notice by a Commonwealth employee at our offices in Melbourne. It appears to me to be remarkable that repatriation benefits for merchant seamen are confined to those who have suffered disabilities as a result of gunshot wounds or the like. These merchant seamen were on board ships in wartime. They took risks as others did. They lived in confined spaces under war conditions. Their conditions were by no means good. Some of them were trained to man guns. But now, after the war, the remarkably anomalous position is that the Returned Services League, which is very jealous in regard to its conditions of membership, accepts these men as members; but large numbers of them - those who did not receive gunshot wounds - are not eligible for repatriation benefits.
It seems to me that some explanation is required of how a merchant seaman can join the R.S.L., can become president of one of its branches and can be accepted by it in every way, whilst the Government adopts an opposing attitude and says: “ This man may have served as a merchant seaman; the R.S.L. may accept him as a comrade; he may even hold the highest office of an R.S.L. Branch; but he is not eligible for repatriation benefits “. I do not want to elaborate the point. I have no doubt that the responsible Minister and the Government have given consideration to this anomaly. I would like to hear an explanation of what appears to me to be a very hard attitude by the Government.
I appreciate that the Government will say that all sorts of people want to be eligible for repatriation benefits and that if we keep widening the ambit too many people may become involved. But I certainly believe that the present position is wrong. I hope that the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) will give us reasons why a man who served in the merchant navy can be a member of the R.S.L. and even president of an R.S.L. branch, but be told that, in spite of his service, he is not eligible for repatriation benefits.
– I wish to indicate that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill but I want to comment on some references made by Senator McManus. It the first place, the Bill is designed to carry into the principal Act the increases in allowances which will be provided under the Repatriation Act. In this regard, we have no intention of retarding the improvements that might result from this course althoughI think the same general reasoning as to the levels of pensions can be argued. But it is important to know that the substance of our attack on this piece of legislation always has been that an exmariner who served and was subject to the same sort of hazards as ex-servicemen during the two World Wars was entitled to the repatriation benefits given to exservicemen generally. In the Second World War in particular, mariners were often in most hazardous circumstances in the course of every day life and indeed were in these circumstances more frequently than many ex-servicemen. Yet the merchant seamen do not have the same benefits under the Repatriation Act as those applying to exservicemen.
This comment has been made in the Senate and in another place on numerous occasions. It has been said by previous Ministers for Repatriation, andI think by the present Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar), that this matter was under review and that consideration would be given to the opportunities an ex-mariner might have to have access to the processes oft he Repatriation Act just as did those who served in the armed forces. At some stage, the Minister for Repatriation should bring down a report on this matter. He should say more than he has said up to the present which is that the matter is under review. The Minister should be prepared to say that the matter is receiving attention andthat the Government proposes some amendment to the legislation which will give to seamen rights equivalent to those of ex-servicemen. Morally, there seems to be no reason why a seaman within the scope of this Act should not benefit from the same repatriation processes and facilities as those available to exservicemen. I support the general proposition advanced by Senator McManus.I also remind the Minister that this representation has been made on previous occasions. I trust that the Minister now will give some information as to what consideration it is proposedto give seamen in allowing them benefits under the Repatriation Act such as those applied to ex-servicemen.
.- My interest has been attracted to this legislation most importantly by the speech of the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Benson) in another place. Having regard to recent events, I read with more than usual interest the honorable member’s speech on this measure and particularly his complaint that men in the merchant navy were left without proper benefit for maladies received in war service. It was first represented to me that these merchant seamen were not entitled to benefits unless their incapacity was actually based upon a gunshot wound. In his speech in another place, the honorable member for Batman stated -
Yet, at the present time they are entitled to compensation only if they were wounded. To me, that seems odd. I think that in fairness to all people who served, everyone should be treated alike. Being an ex-mariner, I find myself placed in the position that, no matter what electorate people may live in, they come to see me on matters such as those about which I am speaking. They say: “ You understand the position. Will you take this up? “ But I cannot take up matters for them unless they are covered by law.
It was that aspect of the matter that led me in only a few brief moments since mid-day to look into these provisions. Because of the respect which I think is due to the experience of the honorable member for Batman speaking on behalf of members of the merchant navy, I looked at the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act and I found that section 12 states -
Where any Australian mariner . . . becomes incapacitated as a direct result of having sustained a war injury in the course of his employment as an Australian mariner . . .
He is entitled to compensation. Then I found that “ war injury “ means -
. a personal injury -
the doing of any other injurious act, either by the enemy or in combating the enemy or in relation to any expected or suspected attack by the enemy or any expected attack upon the enemy;
Then the term “ war injury “ seems to have been extended by an amending provision in 1952 in this sense -
A war injury shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been sustained by a person in the course of his employment as an Australian mariner where the war injury occurred -
while he was employed in a ship as an Australian mariner; a temporal relationship only, and -
while he was at a place outside Australia on leave from a ship in which he was employed as an Australian mariner and which was at a port outside Australia;
while he was at a place (not being a place on land in Australia) in the course of proceeding to employment in a ship as an Australian mariner;
while he was at a place at which he was awaiting return to Australia from employment in a ship as an Australian mariner; or
while he was returning to Australia from employment in a ship as an Australian mariner.
I mention these matters because in 1952 there was an extension of the cover insofar as it is prescribed by the force of employment to cover travelling to and from a ship and being employed on the ship. But I rather gather the limitation of the benefits to these men came from the restricted definition of the term “ war injury “. There does not seem to be in the Act anything that would cover disease or malady that accrues as, perhaps, a delayed result of war service as in the case of a man who is on a marine convoy and is shipwrecked. In an instance mentioned to me, a man was in these circumstances and for four weeks was in an open boat. Such a man might exhibit symptoms of that exposure in later life. Again there is the question of war injury.
– Suppose the man was in the water and not in a boat?
– What is the distinction in the honorable senator’s mind?
– If a man were in the water, he would not be in a ship and he would be outside the scope of the Act.
– With great respect to the chamber rather than to the interjection - but with respect to the interjection - I would not be prepared to follow my learned friend, the honorable senator, by land, sea or air, in identifying myself with that view of the ambit of the benefit. I just wanted to make a contribution which would provoke thought and to carry on this plea that the honorable member for Batman, due to his experience, made in another place. It so happened that my attention was attracted to it, and what I have read in recent times about his service has excited in me an admiration for his experience and qualification as a spokesman for these particular people. All I wanted to do was to bring to the attention of the Minister and to those who read “ Hansard “ rather than the statutes just what the terms are so that when, as I hope, repatriation matters are reconsidered, this matter will be examined to see whether benefit should be given in the case that I have mentioned merely as an instance of where benefit is, perhaps, denied by a rather rigid interpretation of the term “ war injury “.
– First, I should like to thank the Opposition for the intimation that it is in accord with the Government’s action in bringing down this Bill. Secondly,I should like to say that those of us who have read over the years of the privations, trials and tribulations - I use the word not tritely but in its full sense - of the men who were in the Merchant Navy during the war years pay a great tribute to them for the way in which they performed their tasks. Those of us with some limited knowledge of the conditions which they had to endure have a deep admiration and hearty respect for them. One thinks back to the convoys, for instance, to Malta and those to Russia which called, perhaps, for even greater endurance. I for one would not like to have been called upon to undergo the sufferings experienced by the men in those convoys under appalling conditions quite apart from the dangers to which they were subjected and the continual risk from enemy action. They did a really magnificent job. While the matter is outside my province, I sometimes feel that, in view of the part that these men played in the winning of the victory in World War II, we have not done enough for them.
As honorable senators know, the subject matter of the Bill is not directly concerned with repatriation, but in relation to some of the subjects that were raised by Senator McManus, the following notes may be of interest and, perhaps, they may provide some enlightenment: “ War injury “ is defined in the Act in a limited way which requires it to be a personal injury connected with enemy action. Section 5 requires a pensions committee to determine, among other things, whether death or incapacity is directly attributable to such a war injury, and a pension is not payable unless death or incapacity is a direct result of having sustained a war injury. The records of the debate in 1940, when the original Bill was first introduced, make it clear that this is the basis of the legislation and that it was one of the fundamental principles of the British scheme upon which the Australian Act was based. The only argument for the removal of the direct qualification would be that mariners had served under the same conditions and been exposed to the same risks and dangers as personnel in the Defence Forces. In actual fact, seamen continued in their normal occupation at civilian rates of pay and under civilian conditions. Although they gave meritorious service and were subject to risks, many other sections of the community who are not eligible for any pension also gave meritorious service and were subject to risks.
The basic difference between the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act and the Repatriation Act is that the former is solely to supplement normal workers’ compensation rights which do not extend to war injuries, whereas the latter is to provide a whole range of general repatriation benefits to servicemen and their dependants to compensate them in some way for the special conditions under which the men served. This fundamental difference between the two sets of legislation has been regarded by successive governments as fair and reasonable, particularly as similar conditions apply in the United Kingdom legislation. Any alteration to the definition of “ war injury “ could well be the thin end of the wedge, leading to a complete paralleling of the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act and the Repatriation Act.
The interpretations of the provisions of the Act that Senator Wright gave -I followed them as he gave them - were entirely correct. Whatever we, as individuals, may think about the questions whether this Act goes far enough, it is the Act with which we are faced at present, under which these compensations and allowances are paid. Once again,I pay my tribute to those men who did so much for Australia in the cause in which so many of them suffered so much.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 839
In Committee
Department of Housing
Proposed expenditure, $4,457,000.
Proposed provision, $58,250,000.
Consideration resumed from 27th September (vide page 735). on the question -
That the Committee take note of the proposed expenditure.
Upon which Senator Poke had moved by way of amendment -
That the following words be added to the question - “ But is of the opinion that the expenditure should be reduced by $1 as a protest against the Government’s action in excluding credit unions from the provisions of the Homes Savings Grant Act 1964-1965.”
.- I listened with considerable interest to the debate on the question of whether credit unions should be included in the list of approved organisations under the Homes Savings Grant Act. I was somewhat surprised that some Government supporters professed a lack of knowledge of the operations of credit unions. I should have thought that they were strongly established organisations in the community today. I should have thought that members of Parliament in particular would be aware of the very fine work they do to encourage saving in the community and to enable a considerable section of the community to avoid paying excessive interest on loans. I must be fair to those honorable senators who have spoken. They did not display any antagonism to the operations of credit unions, but they did suggest that they were not very well known and that perhaps they were not the kind of organisation that could be accepted for the purpose of the homes savings grant scheme. It was suggested that in some cases their operations were on such a small scale that they could hardly be regarded as being proper organisations to be included. I disagree. I have had a good deal of association with, and experience of, the work of credit unions. Tn many instances they did begin as small loan organisations. That was only natural, because the amount of finance that was available to them when they began was very limited. But as the ordinary people in the community realised the value that they could get from investing their savings in credit unions, the operations of these organisations began to grow. They now show signs of being very extensive indeed.
Even in the United States of America there has been a tremendous increase in the activities of credit unions. Credit unions now perform very valuable functions in that country. In reply to the suggestion that they are small organisations, I merely say that their future development is secure provided they are given the proper opportunities to lend money for housing purposes. In reply to the suggestion that they advance only a small loan I would say that, if they are given the proper facilities and as people get to know their value, the scale of their operations will grow and they will have an opportunity to make loans of the kind that Senator Mattner suggested they would need to be able to make in order to qualify under the homes savings grant scheme.
I believe that in any community cooperative organisations play a most valuable part. A lot of people talk about Socialism and that kind of thing. But even people who are opposed to Socialism admit that the kind of social credit that emanates from credit unions can do nothing but good. I strongly support what has been said by honorable senators on this side of the chamber about the value of the operations of credit unions. To those who say that they are not yet big enough I repeat that if they are given the necessary facilities there need be no doubt about the possibility of their becoming big enough to qualify. To those who say that their loans amount to only a couple of thousand dollars I point out that already some of these organisations have been able to double the amount of their loans for housing purposes. They have been prevented from playing a full part, or the part that people say they should play, because of the restrictions that have been placed upon them. I have no doubt that, if those restrictions are removed they will have a great future. I support what has been said by honorable senators on this side of the chamber about the desirability of including credit unions in the housing loans structure. I shall vote in favour of the proposal that is now before us and which is aimed at inducing the Government to include them.
– I was speaking when this debate was interrupted. I am sorry that I could not catch your eye, Madam Temporary Chairman, to get the call when the debate was resumed. Earlier I was addressing myself to Senator Poke’s motion in relation to credit unions. I was seeking information. I am glad that other honorable senators have spoken on this matter. But I am still not satisfied in my own mind. As I said earlier, the credit unions are excellent institutions. I posed one or two questions deliberately, thinking that the sponsor of the amendment or someone who supported him would give me a little more information than has been made available.
I think it is correct to say that the headquarters of the credit unions is in New South Wales. I suppose we can accept what they have said as being correct. The credit unions I have in mind were registered in New South Wales under the Co-operatives (Amendment) Act 1923-1965. As I said earlier, I believe that the maximum loan that may be made available by a credit union is $800 on the personal .security of the borrower, and in some cases $2,000 on other security. Other securities include first or second mortgages, bills of sale, guarantees and the like. It has been said that these unions have altered their rules relating to the maximum amount that can be borrowed. Is that so?
– Yes.
– We know they have received advice from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies that, subject to suitable amendments to their rules, permission will be granted to increase to $4,000 their maximum permissible loan for the purchase of land or the erection or purchase of a home. Have these rules been amended?
– Yes.
– In two cases.
– The proposer of the motion should give us these facts. The security would be a first mortgage or a second mortgage and the total amount to be lent would not exceed 90 per cent, of the valuation of the property secured. The excess over 70 per cent, of the valuation would have to be guaranteed. I also asked earlier what interest was to be paid. I asked whether the rate would be 6 per cent. flat. I. was not sure. Senator Gair, who professed to know all, said that the interest rate would be moderate. He added that I believed in usury. He was a little unkind. I never mentioned such a thing. What is the interest rate? Every society makes its own rules. I believe that in some cases the interest rate is 5 per cent. flat. In other cases it is Id. per £ per fortnight, or 26d. per £1 for a year. This is the equivalent of about 10 per cent, simple interest on a reducing balance basis. Other unions charge 5 per cent. flat.
I could mention many other matters. 1 should like to know where the credit unions are placing their money. There is no question ‘hat they are good organisations. I am not denying that for a moment. I wanted a few more facts. If I am correct - and f believe 1 am - in saying that the interest charged is Id. per £1 per fortnight, which is just over 10 per cent, simple interest, it is a relatively high rate to pay, particularly on first mortgages. I repeat, as I said last night, that the credit unions are doing good work by granting loans to their members for home extensions, such as the provision of extra rooms and garages, to purchase motor cars or pay for car repairs and registration, or to purchase furniture and household appliances. Loans are also made for the consolidation of hire purchase debts, medical expenses and so on.
I would not wish to bc misunderstood. I am just trying to obtain from Senator Poke, who moved the amendment, some more information. Nothing has been put by Senator Poke to alter my opinion that, excellent as the credit unions might be in their restricted field - and I hope with Senator McManus that they might grow - at present, due to lack of further information I should vote against his amendment.
[4.57]. - A motion is before the Senate and .1 shall speak lo it when I have heard the views of other honorable senators. It is quite obvious that a number of honorable senators wish to speak to the motion. But Senator Laught asked me a question earlier, which 1 would now like to answer. He referred to the allocation of Home Builders’ Account funds to building societies in South Australia compared with such allocations in Queensland. Unlike the other States, which apportion to their Home Builders’ Accounts the required minimum of 30 per cent, of their total funds under the Housing Agreement each financial year, South Australia has been apportioning more than 50 per cent. I think that Senator Laught gave information from a letter he had received. It seems that his correspondent misunderstood the position in Queensland. Queensland did apportion to its Home Builders’ Account 40 per cent, of its share of the additional advances of $15 million which were made to the States in 1965-66, but it has reverted to the 30 per cent, minimum for 1966-67. Although the major share of the money in the South Australian Home Builders* Account is allocated to the State bank, a substantial sum is also allocated to the permanent building societies each year.
– Can the Minister tell us what is the percentage? She used tha word “ substantial “.
– This point is a matter for discussion between the South Australian Premier and myself as Minister for Housing. I am pleased to announce that the total allocation to building societies agreed upon recently between the South Australian Premier and myself for the current financial year is larger than in any previous year.
– Before the Minister sits down, will she please tell us why the Government will not include credit unions within the operations of the homes savings grant scheme?
– As to Senator Turnbull’s interjection, in fairness to the Minister I point out that she said that after honorable senators had made their contributions to this discussion, she would then set out the Government’s attitude to this question. Once the Minister has explained that attitude, it may be necessary for some of us to again rise to speak. In the absence of an explanation it is difficult to understand, as Senator Turnbull implied in his interjection, why credit unions cannot be accepted under the scheme.
The Senate is discussing the estimates for the Department of Housing and while there is much in the estimates to be discussed, I shall devote my time to the amendment moved by Senator Poke. The amendment seeks to reduce the estimates for the Department by $1 as a means of expressing dissatisfaction with the refusal of the Government to accept credit unions under the homes savings grant scheme. Honorable senators should recognise that we are discussing organisations which should be accepted for the purposes of the Homes Savings Grant Act. Senator Mattner to a very large extent devoted his remarks to the theory that the test of acceptance of organisations is the way in which they lend their money. But that is not at all the purpose of the Act. The whole purpose of the Act, as stated by the Minister, is to assist young people to purchase homes, and to encourage savings for the purchase of a home.
While the Act. offers inducement to young people to save for a home, it should not matter to the Government in what institution the savings are made for that purpose. Under the Act the Government supplements the savings of young couples to the extent of one third as an encouragement to save for a home. Unfortunately, the Act specifies certain institutions in which the savings must be placed. The proposed amendment raises the question: Why should young couples have to save in specified institutions? If credit unions were accepted for the purposes of the scheme, in order to comply with the Act it would be necessary for young couples to have their savings placed in homes savings accounts. They would still be savings for the purpose of purchasing homes.
Credit unions have been established Australia wide. While previously I was not interested in this type of institution, because it did not exist in South Australia, I am informed that now five credit unions are operating in that State. The largest of these is the Police Association Credit Union, in which people of a particular occupation are encouraged to invest their money. It ls lent out for purposes which are beneficial to members at times of financial stress, or to achieve a desired purpose. Credit unions are an innovation in Australia - particularly in South Australia - and they are growing rapidly. According to information furnished by the Federation of Credit Unions, they have a present capital of about $80 million.
Throughout Australia 500 credit unions are operating, with about 200,000 members. While the rules of most credit unions limit loans to a maximum of $2,000. the information supplied by the Federation states that many credit unions are currently discussing alterations to the rules to allow loans exceeding $2,000 to bc made for housing purposes. Credit, unions which have already so altered their rules are the Electricity Commission Employees Credit Union Ltd. - $4,000 maximum loan - and the Irrigation Commission Credit Union Co-operative Ltd., which now approves maximum loans of $4,000. It is incorrect to say that the repayment period is five years for a maximum loan. It is seven years. Two of the larger credit unions have altered their rules to permit loans of up to $4,000, wilh repayments over seven years. However, it can be accepted that at this stage the average loan permitted is $2,000. Let us see how this affects the Homes Savings Grant Act
We have been told that it is the intention of the Government that money is to be loaned on a long term basis for home building purposes, but there is nothing in the Act to indicate that that is the intention. It is necessary to place the money in a special account with a savings bank or some other institution, but there is nothing to say that the money must be invested in long term loans for the purpose of housing. I think that in discussing the Budget I slated that the Banking Act makes it mandatory for the savings banks to retain 65 per cent, of their deposits. They may lend up to 35 per cent, of their deposits. The savings banks do not know from day to day whether they have the necessary 35 per cent, to lend, and they dare not lend this money on long term loans. So, at no time will the savings banks lend in excess of 24 per cent, of their deposits for long term loans. We insist that savings for the purpose of attracting a homes savings grant must be deposited with « savings bank or some other institution, but at the best only 24 per cent, of savings bank deposits can be invested in long term housing loans. Therefore, perhaps the banks are not investing in housing loans to a greater extent than are the credit unions.
The credit unions for their part cannot invest in long term housing loans, but they lend money for the purchase of land which is one of the most essential features of home building. In doing so, surely they are making a great contribution to housing. In fact, they are making such a contribution in this respect that expenditure on the purchase of land by a person who is qualified for a homes savings grant is accepted as savings. The credit unions are lending large amounts for housing by way of second mortgages. This is an important aspect of their activities. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has stated in its annual report -
In recent years it has become obvious that the amounts homeseekers have been able to borrow on first mortgage, when combined with the amounts they have generally been able to save, have fallen short o’f the sum needed to buy or build a home. The shortfall, referred to as the “ deposit gap “ often forces the homeseeker to borrow an additional amount on second mortgage, frequently over a short period of repayment at a relatively high interest rate.
The loan from the credit union conies in to fill the gap. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation found that this was one of the things needed in the present method of housing assistance. Because the credit unions are assisting in that way, surely they are making a contribution to overcoming the housing problem. With the surplus money for which they cannot find an avenue of investment, they support the cooperative housing movements. In order to show that surplus credit union moneys have been invested in permanent building societies, I point out that the New South Wales Electricity Commission Employees Credit Union Ltd. has invested $90,000 in this way. The New South Wales Credit Union League has invested $110,000 and th£ C.B.O.A. Credit Union has invested $379,000. That is a total of $579,000 invested in co-operative building societies.
Credit unions are making a big contribution to home building, but I think that an even bigger contribution would be made if they were to be regarded as approved organisations for the purposes of the Homes
Savings Grant Act. They are encouraging people who perhaps have no immediate intention of building, to save their money. They are encouraging thrift. As honorable senators probably know, in industry arrangements are made for contributions to credit unions to be deducted from the pay of employees. Credit unions are growing. It does not seem to me to be fair that loyal supporters of the credit union movement who wish to build a home at some time in the future and to save for that purpose, should bp required to withdraw their funds from a credit union and deposit them with an organisation approved under the Act. That is the complaint made by the credit unions. They object to the compulsion being placed on members to place their savings with other institutions. The members themselves wish to make use of the facilities which the credit unions offer. Because savings have to be withdrawn in this way the growth of the credit union movement is being retarded.
I submit that the Australian Federation of Credit Union Leagues does the very thing that the Homes Savings Grant Act wants people to do, in that it encourages people to save. Young people should be able to place their savings with a credit union just as they can with other organisations. After all, the credit unions are encouraging savings for home building purposes. Senator Mattner threw out a challenge and. said that he wanted answers to questions he asked, but I suggest that he is concerned only with the way in which the money is spent. The credit unions assist people to obtain homes by encouraging them to save. The question of what they do with their money is not relevant to the point. I am making. Credit unions are acceptable in the Commonwealth, and they are growing organisations. They could perhaps make a greater contribution to encouraging saving for home building purposes than any other organisations in the Commonwealth. Why should not these large, widely representative organisations be accepted as approved organisations?
– I rise to join other honorable senators who have supported the amendment moved by Senator Poke. It seeks to induce the Government to take action to ensure that credit unions are brought into the scope of the Homes Savings Grant Act in order thai the moneys deposited with them may be accepted as savings for the purposes of thai Act. These bodies are, by the definition in the Act as it applies to the end of 1967, organisations which are set up under the law of a State or Territory. They are reputable and sound organisations which are subject to public supervision through an appropriate authority. Their expansion in the community shows that they are fulfilling a need. They represent the collective effort of hundreds of thousands of people who are performing a service to themselves and to their fellows, not only by way of encouraging savings and wise expenditure, but also by encouraging a spirit of cooperalion at the level of the citizen.
The Homes Savings Gram Act is designed to assist young married persons to purchase or build their homes. The Minister will recall her statement on 3rd March of this year, which was reported in the Melbourne “ Herald “. lt is apparent that a house is not a home. On that occasion the Minister said -
The home, whether it is a cottage or a flat, is the very heart of family life. it should contain facilities fur cooking, eating, sleeping, washing, entertainment, relaxation and even study.
The Act is directed, not towards house building or the acquisition of bare walls, but towards the acquisition of homes by young people. This means the land, the building and all those things which go to make up a home.
Credit unions are performing a very valuable function in assisting young married people and others to acquire homes. They assist people to acquire land on terms which enable them to go lo building societies and use the financial facilities of those societies to build a home. The credit unions’ terms are such that the building societies are prepared to lend on first mortgage. Credit unions make moneys available for the purchase of the other facilities which are necessary parts of a home, even though they do nol conic within the concept of a house.
What are the objections to the inclusion of these reputable, sound and desirable societies within the scope of the Act? lt is said that they do not lend all of their money for housing. One finds that trading banks and savings banks are acceptable organisa tions under the Act, but they do not lend all of I heir money for housing. As Senator Turnbull mentioned, the trading banks, in an attempt lo compete with credit unions, recently began to make personal loans. They are indulging in competition in the very field which engages a large part of the credit unions’ attention.
Let us look at the banks’ lending for housing as a percentage of their assets. The Australian banking statistics to the end of June 1966 disclose the following information regarding banks’ lending for housing in relation to their total lending: State Savings Bank of Victoria, about 27 per cent; Savings Bank of South Australia, about 28 per cent.; Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia, about 32 per cent.; Hobart Savings Bank, about 18 per cent.; Launceston Bank for Savings, about 23 per cent.; Australia and New Zealand Savings Bank. Ltd.. about 23 per cent.; Bank oi Adelaide Savings Bank Ltd.. about 21 per cent.; Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank Ltd., about 26 per cent., and so on. Overall, savings bank loans for housing represent 23.5 per cent, of total loans by private savings banks.
Let us look al the amounts which have been loaned by credit unions for housing, as shown by the figures which Senator Cavanagh presented and which appear in the document thai was sent to all honorable senators by the Australian Federation of Credit Union Leagues. One finds that the Australian Broadcasting Commission Start Association’s credit union, one of the larger credit unions, has loaned 30 per cent, of its total assets for housing: the J.C.l. employees” credit union has loaned 34 per cent.; the New South Wales Electricity Commission employees’ credit union has loaned 30 per cent.; and the Sydney Water Board staff credit union has loaned 40 per cent. When one examines the assets of the institutions which come within the scope of the Act, one finds that a lesser proportion of their assets is advanced for housing than is the case with the larger credit unions.
– That would not bc quite right. The honorable senator has referred to three of the larger credit unions. He has not given us the overall lending of credit unions.
– I. spoke of the larger credit unions.
– But each credit union has its own rules.
– I judge from the honorable senator’s remarks that the criterion has to be the percentage of the assets of an institution which is loaned for housing. Why is not that made the test? Why should not institutions which meet the same requirements as organisations which are accepted under the Act come within the purview of the Act? I feel that credit unions would not object if the same criterion were applied to them. If it were said that institutions which loaned more than 25 per cent, of their assets for housing could maintain home savings accounts and be acceptable for the purpose of the Act, I would think that that would be a great step forward. But at the moment there is a distinction between those within and those without, which is not based on any sensible criterion.
The Government has simply taken the stand that trading banks, savings banks and certain building societies should be included in the Act, but it has excluded credit unions, apparently on the basis that they are not making a contribution to housing. The plain fact is that they make a significant contribution to housing in the respects which I have mentioned. But it does not end there. In some instances, other assets of credit unions are lodged with their central credit union, and a deposit may be made, through that union, with building societies. I understand that credit unions are making a significant and growing contribution in that regard.
Earlier, Senator Mattner said that the centre of the credit unions seemed to be in New South Wales. A representative of the Australian Federation of Credit Union Leagues, Mr. Arneil, is at present in the gallery of the chamber. He has assured me that the amounts for housing which are flowing through the credit unions are increasing and that their contribution to building societies is bound to increase. If credit unions are given the opportunity to lake advantage of the benefits which are made available to institutions such as the private banks, then undoubtedly their contribution to housing will grow. Why should this Government by its inaction and its opposition in matters such as this frustrate the growth of the credit union movement?
It is no use pointing to interest rates. Everyone would like to see interest rates reduced. We are living under a system which certainly is not desirable. People either have to pay high interest rates or do without the finance they need.
There is no doubt that the people who constitute a co-operative movement will operate as best they can under the system that prevails. They will be reducing the rates of interest which are payable, after all, by themselves. It is the members of the union who control the union. No doubt, they will endeavour to provide those rates of interest which are most compatible with the welfare of their own members. A credit union is not an institution that exists to make profit for the persons who own it. A credit union consists of citizens who set up their own standards. Credit unions are cooperatives. They act in the interests of their members. The members of credit unions ask this Government - and the Opposition on behalf of them asks the Government also - why should not they be able to enjoy the facilities of this Act which has been passed for the public benefit. Why should not persons who lodge moneys with credit unions be eligible for the payment of a homes savings grant if the moneys are lodged in a home savings account? Why should not these savings by any married couple be treated as acceptable savings? Why should not the Government be prepared to accept those savings as eligible? We find no answer coming from the Minister for Housing.
– The honorable senator will.
.- The Committee is debating the estimates of the Department of Housing. On behalf of the Opposition Senator Poke has moved an amendment that seeks to reduce the appropriation for the Department by SI as a protest against the exclusion of credit unions from the provisions of the Homes Savings Grant Act. It is interesting to note that this debate has revolved around the question: Why should credit unions be excluded from the provisions of the Homes Savings Grant Act? It is a pity that the Opposition has not taken the opportunity to deal more fully with some of the excellent provisions which have been made by the Government in furtherance of its policy to encourage the building of houses throughout Australia. J think that it would be very interesting to look at the debate on the Homes Savings Grant Bill when the measure was first introduced in this place and to discover how many senators on the Opposition side were as vocal then as they are today in suggesting that credit unions should bc recognised under this scheme.
– Of course we were vocal. Does the honorable senator want the reference in “ Hansard “?
– lt is interesting that the Opposition puts this proposition forward now. I suggest that honorable members opposite were not half as vocal in making their suggestions at that time. The basis of this scheme is the provision of amounts up to $500 on savings up to $1,500 which have been accumulated in a approved institution. It is fair to say that good arguments exist as to why credit unions should be included in the ambit of this scheme. I could suggest a number of areas in which savings could bc made by an individual. Perhaps savings could bc made on the slock market. Many young businessmen today find that, because of the business they are engaged in. it is wise to save by purchasing shares in the business that employs them.
– Does that apply with regard to H. G. Palmer Ltd.?
– The honorable senator has commented on the very reason why a bank, because of the gilt edged security it offers should be the place where the savings are kept. I ask the honorable senator to discuss that point with his fellow senators some time. The very basis of the provisions of the Act has been slated in that interjection from an Opposition senator.
– Does the honorable senator say that credit unions are unsound?
– I do not wish to be diverted by interjections from the theme of my remarks. This Government has done more for housing in this country than any other government in the past.
– The honorable senator is avoiding the issue.
– I do not avoid it. I think that the Committee has discussed the matter. I put it to you, Senator-
– Order! 1 ask Senator Webster to address the Chair.
– I would like lo put some facts to you, Sir, in relation lo housing in Australia. I. think thai the Minister for Housing should be congratulated, as indeed the Commonwealth Government should be congratulated, because some $120 million is being made available to the States this year under the Commonwealth-Slate Housing Agreement. An amount of $15 million was made available in March of this year for housing.
– How much for credit unions?
– What about credit unions?
– Honorable senators opposite who are interjecting should take note of these figures. An amount of $58 million has been made available for war service homes and $9 million is being provided under the Aged Persons Homes Act.
– What about credit unions?
– Let me continue. In the Territories, $174- million is being provided for housing. I. do not doubt that honorable senators opposite would like lo take note of the points that I am making. I suggest that they must take notice of them.
– We give the Government credit.
– Thank you.
– But give me an answer to my question.
– The honorable senator should give the Government credit for the provision of $13 million in relation to homes savings grants after the scheme has been in operation for a little over a year. Let it be noted that the $500 that is being provided by the Government is worth much more than $500 because it is a tax free gift.
– But why is provision not made for credit unions?
– I could stale half a dozen reasons.
– Tell me one reason why credit unions should be excluded?
– Very well. I will get on the credit union bandwagon.
– Tell me and I will bc quiet.
– Senator Mulvihill pointed to an area in respect of which a recognised saving could not be made.
– Does the honorable senator say that credit unions arc doubtful organisations?
– 1 say that what the Government has achieved in introducing this scheme is well proved in the current figures. As members of the Federal Parliament, we should recognise that the provision of some 100,000 houses a year in Australia is a good thing. Indeed, the provision of housing is perhaps the most important area in secondary industry because employment is provided for labour and sustenance is provided in a very wide field to secondary industries.
In July of this year houses and flats were being constructed at. the rate of 10,266 per month. If honorable senators opposite multiply that figure by 12 they will see that the level of housing in Australia - surely this must be of interest to the Opposition - is pretty fair. In August of this year, the peak of housing construction was reached with the building of 11,609 houses and flats. In my book, that represents construction at the rate of 130,000 houses and flats per year.
– How many would we have had if the provisions of the Act applied to credit unions?
– I believe that what is being done in relation to housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and the various other forms-, of assistance to which I have referred is most important to the provision of homes for Australians and the well being of our building industry. Might I comment on one or two points in relation to housing in Australia generally? All honorable senators should be delighted that the ownership of homes in Australia is such a high percentage of the total number. I do not know of any country in the world that can claim home ownership as high as-
– I take a point of order. For my information, Mr. Temporary Chairman, to what section of the estimates is the honorable senator speaking?
–
Senator Webster is speaking to the estimates relating to the Department of Housing - Administrative.
– By their interruptions, members of the Opposition are trying to avoid discussion of these estimates just as they have been trying to avoid the presentation of certain Bills during the last few days. I was making the point for the benefit of honorable senators opposite when I was interrupted that the high level of home ownership in Australia is a great credit to this Government. In the Minister’s own words, approximately 75 per cent, of Australians living in homes either own them or are in the process of purchasing them. Surely we should be proud of this figure.
– It is unrivalled.
– Yes, it is unrivalled. Let me say that the position in Victoria is unrivalled by that in any other State. Victoria leads the way in this field. The work that has been done by the Victorian Government, the private sector of the building industry and the Housing Commission has been of great benefit to the people of that State. I note that the Victorian Minister for Housing has indicated that five years ago there was about 1,000 acres of slums in Melbourne and that during the last five years more than 220 acres of slums has been cleared. Two hundred and twenty acres is a fair area of land* But while slum clearance is going on in Victoria, private industry and the Stale authorities are building between 32,000 and 34,000 homes a year.
– In what suburbs were the slums cleared?
– In a variety of suburbs. Sub-standard dwellings are found in many areas, including areas that are classed as very good ones in which to build. One point in which honorable senators would be interested is that building costs in Victoria have risen by approximately ISO per cent.
– Under a Liberal Government.
– That is so. And carpenters’ wages have risen by 265 per cent, under that Liberal-Country Parly Government. It can be seen that what that Government has done over the years has added greatly to the health of the building industry, which is the thermometer of the economy of nearly every major city.
– The honorable senator means the barometer.
– No; the building industry is the thermometer because it can be used to test whether many industries including the electrical and other industries, are efficient at the particular time.
I wish to refer to another matter now; that is. the building of multi-storeyed Hats. I am greatly disturbed because it does not appear that the Federal Government, when it lends money to th*: States, can use its influence to bring about some decentralisation of housing or can have a say in the type of housing that is erected. We hear from overseas about the disadvantages that are created by multi-storeyed housing. I cannot bring myself to believe that in this country of such wide open spaces we should be using our money to enable families to bc brought up in buildings of 8, 10 and 12 storeys. The future is not good in this regard. I would much prefer to see money spent on the development of satellite towns in which housing could be made more open than it is in some of our capital cities today. I relate my remarks particularly to Victoria. In that State we are progressing greatly and utilising the money that is available. The principle seems to ‘be that the unit cost of building multi-storeyed buildings is less than the unit cost of building individual houses. There may be some benefit in providing this multi-storeyed housing; but I do not believe that in the long run it is good for the community in general.
One point that I wish to make concerns a statement that the Minister has made abou’ the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation This wonderful proposition was put forward by this Government. In a recent statement the Minister indicated that, although up to 30th June 809 housing loans to a value of S6.3 million had been insured, within three months from that lime the figures had risen to 1,413 loans to a value of more than $1.1 million. So we sec the result of encouraging the investment of money in this field. It is great encouragement when one realises that today the Corporation is insuring loans at the rate of about $25 million a year. On a previous occasion the Minister stated - I think she should make this point clear - that the availability of insurance against all risk of loss on individual loans provides a first class security for investors in approved lending institutions. I believe that that statement can be misconstrued. I know of no gilt edged security for people who wish to lend money to approved lenders. Honorable senators may remember that this point was debated at some length at the time of the introduction of the Housing Loans Insurance Bill. I put it to honorable senators that they would readily agree that, as much as there is gilt edged security for the lending institution that lends with the guarantee and insurance of the Government, there is no gilt edged security for people who wish lo lend to the lending institutions. This point applies to the amendment. I suggest that the Government is certainly doing the right thing in confining ils assistance for people who save in order to qualify under the homes savings grant scheme to institutions which appear, on the basis of the state of the market at the present time, to be gilt edged investments. 1 oppose the amendment.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [5.42]. - I have listened with great interest to the honorable senators who have spoken on the amendment. I am certain that other honorable senators will speak later. J want to make one or two points. The first is that, if the impression of honorable senators opposite is that the Government is biased against credit unions, that is far from the truth. The credit union movement is a very worthwhile one. I have no doubt that it has enabled or helped many families to obtain some - perhaps a large part - of the finance that they need to pay for furniture and other home comforts, additions or repairs to homes, portion of the cost of land for homes, motor cars, washing machines, prams and various other household items. I know of the housewives who thank credit unions for what they have done in assisting in the purchase of wonderful labour saving devices, lt is in the national interest that people should be encouraged and assisted to achieve a better standard of living. Credit unions are frankly acknowledged as organisations that do just that.
– Why cannot they be accepted?
– Will the honorable senator mind his own business and listen lo the Minister?
– I am trying to find out why credit unions cannot be accepted.
– .1 suggest to Senator Cavanagh that, if one listens, it is very much easier to find out what another person thinks on a subject. I think I speak rather distinctly. I will have much pleasure in continuing to do so. When Senator Cavanagh spoke I listened to him. I suggest that he return the compliment. At least until recently the maximum loan made by a credit union to any one member was 52,000. That is a very worthwhile loan. Also, I think I am right in saying that such loans were expected to be repaid within seven years. Is that the type of loan that is sought by a person who wishes to buy or to build a home? It could be very useful for a second mortgage. But what most home seekers are looking for is a loan of S6,000, $7,000 or $8,000, and not for seven years but for a longer term such as 27 years. I understand that some credit unions have made a few large individual loans to home seekers and that some of their surplus funds have been invested in building societies. But the fact is that up to the present not a very significant proportion of total deposits with credit unions in Australia has been lent to members to assist them to acquire homes.
Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.
– When the sitting was suspended I had been speaking of the work done by the credit unions and referred to the assistance they gave in the purchase of home appliances and various things needed in homes. I had also stated that until recently the maximum loan of a credit union has been $2,000. I spoke of the term of loans being up to seven years and suggested that persons purchasing homes required a larger loan for a longer period than that.
As I have said, I understand some credit unions have made a few large individual loans to home seekers and some of their surplus funds have been invested in building societies. But I believe that up to the present not a significant proportion of credit union money has been lent to members to assist them to acquire a home. So far, the credit union movement has not set out to encourage personal saving for the specific purpose of acquiring a home. A person who is saving to acquire a home and who wishes to obtain a sizeable long term loan would naturally deposit his savings with the institution which offered loans of this type. The function of credit unions has been to provide finance to members on a co-operative basis for the purchase of essential or useful articles which are less costly than a home.
I come now to the next point in the amendment and this brings me to the home savings grant. One of the basic purposes of the homes savings grant scheme, and one we have emphasised from its commencement - it was emphasised also by my predecessor, Mr. Bury - is to encourage savings for homes with institutions whose major or significant function is to provide long term finance for housing. This is to increase the supply of housing finance. We want to see more money made available for advances of the kind sought by most home seekers. These are the reasons why the Government decided that credit unions as they have functioned up to the present could not be regarded as acceptable institutions for the deposit of savings for homes savings grants.
Only a week ago I received a lengthy submission from the Australian Federation of Credit Unions explaining their case after I had seen a deputation from them in my office. I wish to inform the Senate that I am studying this submission as I said I would do. In fairness, let me say that I have noted that the movement seems to be increasing its lending for a variety of purposes related to the acquisition or improvement of homes but I have yet to be satisfied that credit unions meet the criteria of an acceptable institution for the deposit of savings under the homes savings grants scheme. I repeat, however, that I have met a deputation and have received a submission which I am studying as I said I would do.
– I ask the Minister to explain lo me the conflict between the figures on housing issued by the Commonwealth Statistician,
Mr. Archer, and the buoyant statement by the Minister which is supported by the document before the Committee. The Minister would have us believe - 1 say this with respect - that everything is rosy in the matter of housing. Senator Webster delivered what amounted to a second reading speech today. I thought that honorable senators had to ask for information, not give it. during this debate. Senator Webster was quite unfair to the Minister for Housing because he made her speech and answered (h£ queries which we had directed to the Minister herself. .1 understand Senator Webster is an expert on the timber trade and I suggest he should know that the timber trade has been hit very hard by the decline in housing and the falling off in building generally.
– Of course, that is why I am pleased with the current figures.
Senator ORMONDE__ The general situation is as I have stated. There is plenty of unemployment in the building industry. In fact, it is the only industry where there is real unemployment today. The Commonwealth Statistician has stated that in the March quarter of this year housing was down $12 million compared with the corresponding quarter last year. The Commonwealth Statistician has said the building of offices was down by $9 million and the commencement of construction of offices was clown from $32 million lo S7 million. Education construction was down from $15.8 million to $6.8 million and so on. Obviously, there is a conflict between the figures presented in the document before us from the Minister and the figures presented by the Statistician.
I wonder whether the Minister for Housing has read the statement made in another place by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Holten). He expressed my views very forcibly although he is a member of the Australian Country Party. His statement does nol come from a Labour source. Mr. Holten pointed out that something like 33 per cent, of the applications for loans under the homes savings grants scheme were rejected principally because of late application. He quoted cases, particularly of young people who were not yet married but were saving for a home. They had delayed applying for a loan although they had seen officials of the Department of
Housing and allegedly had the necessary booklets. The honorable member pointed out that something like 33 per cent, of the applications had been refused because they had been lodged too late. This indicated to me that there was something wrong with the public relations section of the Department of Housing. It is quite possible the Minister’s public relations officers are not doing their best in handing out the correct information to persons interested in getting assistance under the homes savings grant scheme. I ask the Minister to be good enough to answer these two queries: First, I should like her to explain the conflict between the Commonwealth Statistician’s figures and those of the Department of Housing. Obviously there is conflict there. I should also like to know why there is such a heavy deletion of applications because they were lodged late and because of other misunderstandings.
– I intervene in this debate principally to reply to some of the submissions made by Senator Webster. As I interpret his remarks which flowed from an interjection by me, he contended there was an avenue for the average wage earner to play the stock exchange provided he invested in gilt edged securities. In both Australia and North America we have had hosts of examples of people who, on reaching middle age, had their fingers burned in the famous 1929 financial crisis, lt might be argued that here and in the United States there has been a certain buttressing of the capitalist system to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen again to that extent. I do not imagine that there could be the same ramifications in financial deterioration, although of course at various periods in the postwar world a number of people have suffered economic hardship.
Amongst the various terms that have developed in the postwar world and which 1 have read in Australian and American publications is “ people’s capitalism.” Well, there are all sorts of definitions of that term. Let us take it a little further. We think, justifiably, that if more and more people have a say in the operations of the economy, bureaucratic centralism is avoided. If we take that as a sort of theme and apply it to credit unions, we find that a tremendous number of people are having a certain say in the operations of these organisations. Compare that situation with the depredations of the Stanley Kormans, the Palmers and all sorts of other people. In those cases the whole trouble was that the names of too many people were used to give a sort of atmosphere of prestige. One of the obvious counters to this is that if in organisations more and more people arc having a say in operations, no single person can dominate them.
We all know the origin of credit unions. In the depression and post depression era in North America, and particularly in Canada, the tooling up processes of credit unions developed. It is true, as Senator Cavanagh said, that a number of us have watched very carefully to see that this was not just another form of exploitation. Anybody who has observed these organisations at State level - I am talking about New South Wales but I know the process has been duplicated in other States - has seen their field officers travelling the breadth of the State, going into the Broken Hill company’s works at Newcastle, the steel works at Wollongong, and railway depots, trying, as it were, to develop enthusiasm in this economic field amongst groups of workers - people who, let us be frank, some honorable senators opposite are always afraid will swallow the blandishments of Marxism. Some people might like to use the term “people’s capitalism “; I prefer the term “ credit unions “.
In the initial stages, to which Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin referred, all that people were able to do with the assistance of credit unions was to get certain home utensils at cost price, but the credit unions have gone beyond that stage now. They feel, justifiably after their successes, that it is time they bought into the housing field. lt may be that they will be the rivals of other groups. The theme I want to hammer is that (here is advantage to be gained if we get a group of people, who are enthusiastic, to participate in a particular component of this field of finance. I speak as a humble layman in the realms of finance, but if there is another form of fringe banking and another form of fringe credit to be developed, the more of these groups that we can encourage to do it the better it will be. I repeat that I think there is unanimity between the Government and ourselves about what the credit unions have done up to the present time. But there is a difference between what the Government proposes and the amendment that has been sponsored by Senator Poke.
Last week there was an extremely enthusiastic gathering of the adherents of credit unions in the capital of our nation. People from various walks of life came along. I have referred to heavy industry, but I know there were hosts of people from white collar industries. Most of them could well have been disposed to follow their own lives without giving their time to these administrative difficulties. I might have misunderstood Senator Webster on the question of whether these organisations are completely sound. As I understand the situation, their bad debts are less than one-third of I per cent., and all loans are insured, free of charge, against the death of the borrower. My theme song is briefly this: The more people who can be brought into a group to assume certain financial responsibilities the better. We have to give them this green light. Unquestionably, there will be financial rivalries. After all, if we are to do more than pay lip service to democracy, the more groups we can develop in the community the better.
It is just the same as in many other things. This may be a remote analogy, but I remember that at the time of the Suez Canal fiasco we were told that because European pilots were to be hounded out of Egypt, it would not be possible to get ships through the canal. Regardless of what one might think of him Nasser soon trained pilots to get ships through. Let us apply that experience to the banking and financial systems. It might be argued that on the surface some of the people who are involved in credit unions have not the necessary technical know-how, but if we look at the percentage of bad debts we find that their batting average is much better than that of some captains of industry, like Korman, who have made a hash of everything they have touched, except that they have salted a lot of their ill gotten gains in countries in South America and elsewhere. It is probably time we drastically overhauled our criminal code to make some of these people, who get sentences of five years, liable to 20 years, and so ensure that they do something for society. Unfortunately, in relation to our criminal code today we are much more concerned if two people have a fight in the street. This is regarded as an assault. They probably recover from the beating up that they get. But some of these other people with slick Queen’s Counsel go before a royal commission or a criminal court and they get out of it. This is one of the things we are concerned about in the new society. There is no question that it is time we changed this situation. I am not applying party labels to the question of who defends whom. I am looking at the matter from a practical or pragmatic Socialist viewpoint.
However, I want to refer to one or two other points, apart from the question of credit unions, that have been made. One is in relation to building costs, lt is very easy to grab hold of statistics in relation to a building trades group and say that a carpenter is getting $X for his services. I do not intend to intrude on the statistics of the Victorian building industry, but I know that Senator Cavanagh and others will agree that some years ago the New South Wales Labour Government called on a congress of all elements in the building industry, and people who had attended and said that labour costs accounted for 60 per cent, of building costs went back with their tails between their legs when they found that the figure was at least 30 per cent, lower than that. Some of these furphies about labour costs were exposed: they were completely erroneous.
There is another point on which 1 want to take issue with Senator Webster. This is on the question of the urban sprawl and high density housing. I do not think that it is a question merely of going on with the construction of individual homes and believing that that is the be-all and end-all of society. I was very interested and surprised at the last Australian Citizenship Convention at which, I think, my codelegate was Senator Cavanagh, at the remarks of a Scottish migrant from the Toe H organisation. He contrasted the position in England and Scotland, but mainly in England, with the position in Australia. Probably helped by the unfortunate wartime devastation in Britain, there is now a far greater ratio of playing fields area to population in London and its suburbs than there is in Melbourne and Sydney. I just want to make this point: It is wrong merely to say that we should give the people homes. It is not a case of just bread alone. We must plan housing development so that there are recreational areas to provide the children with healthy facilities for play. Some people will want individual homes. Others will want high density housing. In the final analysis, whereas some people want a garden and some do not, the main point from a health point of view is to have parks and playing areas for people to get that muscular tone which is essential for good living.
In conclusion, I simply want to reiterate that credit unions are on the threshold of another field. After their success in other fields, which has been, I think, virtually endorsed by th; Minister, we feel that they should be encouraged. Yesterday we told honorable senators opposite how a Labour government had taken its courage in its hands in relation to the Snowy Mountains project. I think they will agree that its judgment was correct. We say now that if the Government will give the green light to credit unions in this field, in three or four years we will be able to come back here and say that they have become a major factor in the field of housing finance.
– It has taken a long time to get some information from the Minister. I am very glad that at last we have succeeded in getting it. However, it was not very satisfactory. The only reason advanced by the Minister for not including the credit unions in the homes savings grant scheme was that they do not make enough money available for housing. If she gave any other reasons, I could not pick them up. I really do not care who lends money for housing as long as houses are built. Admittedly, the credit unions started in a small way. But they are growing, and are doing so to such a degree that the banks have become frightened of them. It is obvious that the banks know that the unions will make great inroads into banking functions. The banks, in now making available personal loans of up to $2,000, are doing exactly the same as the credit unions have been doing.
The credit unions consist of groups of people who want to help one another. These people know one another. Each group operates in its own industry, profession or industrial field. Each person knows the other, and any profit that is made comes back to the group. These groups are true co-operatives and therefore should be supported. The fact that there are so many of them shows that they are successful.
The Minister said that the credit unions do not lend enough moneys They lend enough money to allow their members to obtain a house with first mortgage finance. That is essential. When one notes what a borrower has to pay for second morgage finance, one realises what a worthwhile job the credit unions are doing. By allowing their members to buy a block of land and cope with all the costs that are involved preparatory to commencing to build, the credit unions are doing a mighty fine job. The members can then start to build by borrowing money on first mortgage terms. That means that they are not involved in second mortgage finance. As Senator Mulvihill pointed out, the bad debts incurred by the credit unions amount to only .3 per cent, of funds lent. That is a pretty good effort. 1 appeal to the Minister to consider the proposal that has been put forward. 1 know that the Government has sufficient numbers to be able to say. “To hell with anything that you put up “. and I know that honorable senators opposite are determined to stick together, but so far nobody on the Government side has really said anything against the credit unions. Rather have Government senators supported the credit unions. They have said that the credit unions have been successful, but nevertheless they do not lend enough money. They will lend enough money if they can get into the homes savings grant scheme. They started in a small way, but they are getting bigger and bigger and they will be able to do a lot more lending still. Even if they do not get any bigger, they are performing the essential service of enabling young married couples to start off with a block of land and to avoid raising j second mortgage finance.
The Minister has left a loophole. 1 must admit that she said she is looking at the proposal and that she will consider it. I hope she will give it very sympathetic consideration. The Government might have the necessary numbers today to enable it to re-
Iject the proposal, but tomorrow it might not. Would it not be more gracious of the Go vernment to give something to these people of its own volition than to be forced into giving it? Because it has the numbers, the Government says: “This is an Opposition proposal. We must oppose it.” That sort of thing goes on in every Parliament in the country. That is what the Government is doing tonight, but it might have to change its attitude later. Would it not be better for the Government to do something worthwhile now instead of being forced into doing it later?
– 1 propose to direct the attention of the Minister to Division No. 917, subdivision I - “ Provision for homes (for payment to the credit of the War Service Homes Trust Account) “. Before I do so, may I be permitted to speak against the amendment that has been moved by Senator Poke. 1 am not here to decry the credit unions. Indeed, I know very little about them. The articles of the credit unions - 1 stand to be corrected by my legal colleagues if I am wrong in using the term “ articles “ - are so vague as to refer to lending “ for any good purpose “.
– Do not the banks do the same?
– The honorable senator may speak later. They look to me to be like the terms that are drawn up by a company which wishes to operate over a very wide field and which engages a solicitor to cover all the legal issues involved. The Minister for Housing has an obligation to the country to administer the housing legislation and to supervise the fulfilment of the agreed intentions of all concerned. Has she not said that the list of lenders that has been drawn up is still under consideration and could be extended if approved by her and her Department?
It has been suggested that the amendment is in effect a motion of no confidence in the Department of Housing. I have not been in this chamber for a very long time and therefore I have had to read the “ Hansard “ reports as part of my homework and research. Having read the reports of the debates on this subject over the last 10 years, 1 find it difficult to understand why the Opposition should now suddenly say that the failure of the Government to act in the manner suggested is so important and so critical as to warrant a vote . of no confidence in the Department of Housing. This is probably one of the most efficiently administered and best controlled departments iti the Commonwealth sphere. That becomes obvious as one travels around Australia and notes a lack of criticism of the Department. I have heard nothing but praise of this Department. When one reads the “ Hansard “ reports of debates for several years past, one notes that there has been very little criticism by the Opposition of the Government’s efforts to provide housing.
– I ‘ do hot think the honorable senator, has read the “’ Hansard “ reports too well. *
– I have read them quite well. The housing . loans insurance scheme is attracting a great deal of finance to the housing field. I ask the Minister whether the fact that the war service homes scheme allows an ex-serviceman to borrow only $7,000 does not induce him to borrow elsewhere a larger sum at a higher rate of interest for a shorter redemption period. I hope that is not occurring. I cannot agree with the proposed amendment, for the reasons I have stated.
I wish now to return to the subject I referred to at the start of my speech. We can well be proud of the war service homes scheme, which was conceived by a Commonwealth Government. Believe me, on my overseas travels I have found that the scheme is really envied by servicemen and servicewomen of many other countries. When the scheme was introduced it was thought that $100 million would suffice to cover the requirements of the soldiers returning from World War I.
– What has that got to do with credit unions?
– I have spoken on the proposed amendment. I am now referring to Division 197 sub-division 1 of the estimates for the Department. An Australian Government conceived the idea of the scheme, of which we are very proud. I repeat that at that stage $100 million was considered to be sufficient to cover the requirements of World War I servicemen and servicewomen entitled to assistance under the Act. Little did we know at that time that we were to be committed to
World War II, to engagement in Korea and Malaya, and now in Vietnam.
I have found from the figures available to me that since the Liberal and Country Party Government took office in 1949. it has provided over $1,000 million for the war service homes scheme.
– So it has “ for defence, this year.
– That is the figure I “have found, and I defy the honorable senator to ^disprove its accuracy. For the period from March 1919 to December 1949, an amount of $105 million was provided for the scheme. I might add that that amount includes expenditure of $45 million from July 1945 to December 1949, a period when the Labour Party was in office and during which ex-servicemen and exservicewomen would have been expected to have made great demands on the scheme. It seems from the figures I have cited that only $60 million was spent on providing for World War I soldiers and servicewomen. It is proposed that $58 million be provided in the coming year for the scheme to cover ex-servicemen and exservicewomen from World War II, Korea, and Malaya - but mainly World War II veterans.
I think this is evidence that the people returning from service have very good judgment and a lot of confidence in the war service homes scheme. They are satisfied that they should now enter the scheme which provides loans at low interest rates and long term redemption rates, the administration of which is handled by experts and departmental heads. I do not know whether that is true of the earlier years of th,e scheme, but that is the position at present.
I have one concern: That this year there is a reduction in the provision for capital works and services with respect to the War Service Homes Trust Account, from $70 million last year to $5S million this year. I ask the Minister to consider whether the fall is due to the opportunity for people now to borrow through the Housing Loans insurance Corporation, which may be attracting them away from the war service homes scheme which limits loans to $7,000. I hope that is not so and I ask the Minister to enlighten me on that subject.
I draw the attention of the Minister to a statement by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) when he represented the Minister for Housing in this chamber. At page 1443 of “Hansard” of 1 1 th November 1965 he is reported to have said -
Eligible ex-servicemen seeking to own their own homes benefit from the offer of housing loans at a concessional rate of interest and the many services which may be provided under the War Service Homes Act. The extension of these benefits is a matter to be considered within the context of this legislation which is being reviewed by the Government. 1 would like an assurance from the Minister that the review will continue, particularly as to the necessary deposit and the maximum loan which returned servicemen and servicewomen can obtain under the Act.
[8.38J. - I would like to make some comments before we get too far away from the points that have been raised. Senator Ormonde referred to the home savings grant. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but I thought the honorable senator referred to it as a loan, lt is a grant - a tax free gift which, in accordance with the policy of the Government, is of tremendous assistance to young Australian couples. Senator Ormonde mentioned that some applicants had been refused a grant because they had not fulfilled the conditions. Unfortunately that is true in some cases. Of course, in a matter of this kind where a gift is to be made, there are conditions to be fulfilled. One condition is the time limit set for lodgment of applications. The Act provides that an application must be lodged within three months of the prescribed date. This time may be extended by the Secretary for a further nine months if there are special circumstances, but under no circumstances may an application be lodged later than 12 months after the prescribed date. We want all young people to be aware that this condition is of paramount importance. We want them to have the grant which we believe is of great assistance to them.
Senator Ormonde also asked whether the scheme had been given publicity. I can assure the honorable senator that we are giving it publicity in every possible way. We are doing this through radio and Press, and by officers of the Department visiting areas within the States and discussing the scheme with building societies and banks. The officers are endeavouring to make it easy for young people to understand the conditions to be fulfilled, so that they may receive the full benefit of the grant. Senator Ormonde will be interested to know that since the inception of the scheme $27,558,349 has been paid out by way of grants, and 60,910 grants have been made. The average grant has been about $450. That is very good. Of course, we want all our young people who are eligible to apply and to be able to obtain the full grant.
Senator Ormonde also referred to the building industry and the housing figures. This is a matter which, of course, I have brought before the Senate on previous occasions. Admittedly, there was a decline in commencements during 1965-66 from the very high figures that had been achieved in 1964-65. When this decline became evident the Commonwealth took effective action to provide more finance to boost home building throughout Australia, as honorable senators will recall. Following a request by the Reserve Bank of Australia late last year, the savings banks increased their rate of lending for housing during the first six months of 1966 by at least $24 million above the rate at which they had been lending in the last six months of 1965.
Early this year, as I think was mentioned during the debate, on the initiative of the Commonwealth the Loan Council increased last year’s borrowing programme by a further $1.5 million, all of which was allocated to the States for housing under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. Both these actions have been very effective and it is pleasing to note that whereas in the last quarter of 1965 the seasonally adjusted rate in commencements of new dwellings was only a little in excess of 100,000 per annum, commencements in the first quarter of this year were running at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 105,000, and in the June quarter had risen to an annual rate of more than 110,000. These are very important figures. As honorable senators will recall, in the statement that I made in the Senate some time ago I said that there was every reason to believe that the level of commencements would rise further in the coming months. We believe that this will occur.
Senator Ormonde referred to the employment situation. The employment situation in th/s Australian building industry is generally satisfactory overall although it has eased somewhat from the position at July 1965. An honorable senator asked how credit unions would be placed in the list of approved savings organisations if they were to be accepted. 1 am not quite certain of the exact form of the question, but it was to that effect. My reply is that of course the Homes Savings Grant Act would have to be amended. Senator Heatley referred to the war service homes scheme. He spoke of the tremendous benefit which that scheme has been to hundreds of thousands of Australians who have served this country so well over the years. That is very true. The war service homes legislation has been of great benefit since .it was introduced at the end of World War I. It assists ex-servicemen by providing for long term loans at a relatively low rate of interest. Senator Heatley asked whether persons eligible for loans under the war service homes scheme were being forced to seek loans from private sources. There is no evidence at ail that this is happening. Applications are still being received at a high rate, although they are declining a little. Nevertheless, we expect to receive some 12.000 applications in 1966-67. Of course, there is now no waiting time for a loan, and less than 16 per cent, seek approval to obtain secondary finance. This is all a part of the tremendously important story of housing in this country, a story of which I believe every Australian can be very proud indeed.
– The housing situation in New South Wales, the major State of Australia, is very bad indeed. One has only to look at the latest available figures for building approvals to see that in practically every month of this year there have been fewer building approvals than there were in the corresponding months of last year. The figures disclose that there was a tremendous jump in approvals in the Australian Capital Territory. The normal run of monthly figures was 106, 169, 122, 227, 176, 98 and 167. Then, lo and behold, in August the figure was 1,014. Those Australian Capital Territory figures affect the all Australian total. They played a major part in bringing about this great improvement of which the Minister has told us, which occurred in August. How did that improvement come about? lt happened because in that month there was let in the Australian Capital Territory a three year contract for building. What is the good of producing figures like those the Minister produced to the Senate and speaking of approvals and so forth. The people are interested in houses that are built. The housing industry in Australia is not in a good state.
There are throughout this country 200,000 people mobilised in credit unions. They are asking the Government to assist them so that they may use the facilities of the Homes Savings Grant Act. But what does the Government say? Its answer is that so far the credit unions have not set out to encourage people to save for the purpose of acquiring a home. But what are the credit unions doing right now? They are saying to the Government: “ Please let us come within the scope of the Homes Savings Grant Act so that we can assist people to save for homes “. The Government says: “ We will not let you in because so far you have not been assisting people sufficiently to save for homes “. Have honorable senators ever heard of anything so absurd? That is what the credit unions want to do, but the Government is preventing them from doing so because, it says, the credit unions have not been doing it. Again I say that that is absurd.
Let us consider this matter from the point of view of the citizen. Here we have citizens organised into credit unions, community cooperative associations to help one another. A citizen who wants to put his money in the homes savings account of a credit union can get 5 per cent, for it, not a tremendous rate of interest but perhaps more than young married couples can obtain safely elsewhere. Certainly they will not get a higher rate if they put their money in a private bank. To them, every little counts. If the Government were genuine it would say: “ Here is a way, even with the modicum of interest, in which these people can assist themselves to acquire a home “. The Government agrees that the credit unions are sound and reputable organisations and that they ought to be encouraged. It says that it is not biased against them in any way. Nevertheless, if young citizens deposit their money in the homes savings account of a credit union the Government says to them: “The money which you have put in there will not be accepted. You will be disqualified from getting a grant of $500.” It is as plain as that.
Leaving aside the argument as between credit unions and banks, let us consider the position of young married couples or young people about to be married. This Government says that they will be disqualified if they choose to put their money in the homes savings account of a credit union. What possible justification can the Government have for taking that stand? We say that the credit unions are making a magnificent contribution to solving the housing problem in Australia and that that contribution is increasing rapidly. They are smashing the second mortgage racket where, on the pretence of less security, financiers and wealthy people, through agents, are extracting usurious sums of interest from the low and middle income earner just because he wishes to become a home owner.
Credit unions are rapidly increasing the proportion of national resources available for housing because they arc teaching young people to save who have never saved, as well as the middle years group who had not previously thought it possible to save. By their faith in the honesty and ability of the working man to pay for what he wants to buy, they have caused a frantic reappraisal of personal loans by the private savings banks, which have now entered into this field and are spending huge sums of money to compete with credit unions. Credit unions have shown the wage earner that by his own initiative he can rid himself forever of the high cost of credit extended to him by those who neither toil nor plan. Credit unions, once established, are placing a greater proportion of their savings into housing than any private savings bank in Australia.
Every financier, every usurer, every snide loan shark and every private bank will want the Government to keep the credit unions down. Every wage earner who has heard of the credit union movement, its new way of life and its new hope for him and his family will hope that the Government will accept credit unions as rightfully entitled to the provisions of the Act. Who is it to be - the wage earner or the usurer?
.-I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I frankly say that I am amazed at the course which the discussion has taken. Senator Poke, on behalf of the Opposition, moved a motion which amounts to a resolution of censure of the Government. It indicates the Senate’s protest at the Government’s exclusion of credit unions from the provisions of the Homes Savings Grant Act. There has been a great deal of solid material put forward in support of the casethat has been made. Senator after senator on the Opposition side, including Senator Turnbull, an independent, has risen to assail the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) and the Government on an issue of far reaching importance. I do not think I could do better than say we have reached the stage in this discussion where there is a very solid case to answer. With the greatest of respect to the Minister, and without in any way wishing to appear unchivalrous. I must say that I have yet to hear a weaker response to an attack such as that which has been made on this subject tonight.
We have all had the advantage of material from the Australian Federation of Credit Union Leagues. Speaking for myself and without being intimately associated with the subject matter, I have found the material that has been presented to honorable senators by the Federation very impressive. A solid case has been made, which is summarised on page 6 of the document which I think we have all seen. The Federation puts the position in this way -
We believe we have demonstrated -
Credit unions are making a significant contribution to the housing situation by channelling money which would not have been saved into this field.
Credit union members who are saving for a home in a credit union because of its convenience and philosophy are being denied the benefits of the Act.
We believe that were the credit unions granted eligibility under the Act, more young people would be induced to save for a home.
Credit unions by their nature and by comparison with the nature of some of the organisations already enjoying accreditation should themselves be granted eligibility under the Act.
I have listened in vain for some kind of satisfactory response to the case that has been documented in support of those four propositions. Very few honorable senators opposite have risen in support of the Government. Those who have risen have, after a few perfunctory words on the subject of credit unions, proceeded to heap adulation and praise on the Government’s housing programme. They have talked about everything else but the subject matter of this censure motion. Surely we are entitled to hear from the responsible Minister something more than the uncomfortable and unhappy response that we heard from her earlier in the evening. It was not a full blooded response to a vote of censure. It was a nervous, tentative response which had within it the adumbration of a future shift of ground on this matter. At the momentI believe that the case that has been made in support of the vote of censure is impressive and that the case that has been made against it is quite without substance.
. -I rise to support Senator Cohen’s remarks.I think that some sort of attempt should be made to meet the challenge that has been set out in what has been called the censure motion. The Minister for Housing was very impressive in weeping over wives who want washing machines or migrants who want homes, butI think that that could be left to the back benchers. Senator Webster can supply those details. We expect the Minister to answer the questions which have been raised and to give us facts.
After a lot of argument and persuasion, we finally got from the Minister the reasons why, in the view of the Government, credit unions cannot be accepted under the Act. The First reason was that credit unions do not set out to encourage personal saving for home ownership. But, of course, nor did any other organisations until the Homes Savings Grant Act came into operation. Before then people put their money into savings banks and other banks for many purposes. When the Homes Savings Grant Act came into operation, some people put their money into these banks, in a home savings account, for the specific purpose of obtaining a homes savings grant. If we in cluded credit unions within the ambit of the Act, the only people we would be dealing with would be those who put their money into a home savings account in the credit unions.
The Act provides that acceptable savings are moneys deposited -
The Act then refers to building societies. Therefore, money may Be deposited with savings banks or building societies. We find that the definition of a savings bank in the Act is -
So we see that other banks, determined by the Secretary, could be included.
The Minister then stated that the basic purpose of the homes savings grant scheme was to encourage savings with institutions which provided long term credit for housing. I think the Minister said that this was stated by her predecessor as one of the basic intentions of the scheme.I do not think that the Minister should say that that is the basic intention of the scheme without giving us the facts. I refer to a speech which was made on 5th May 1964 in another place by the then Minister for Housing (Mr. Bury). The Minister said -
The purpose of thisBillistohelp young married couples obtain a home of their own by authorising payment to them by the Commonwealth of tax-free grants to supplement their own savings.It is designed to increase the proportion of national resources available for housing purposes by providing a strong inducementto young people to save in ways which provide funds for investment in housing.
That is the purpose of the legislation as stated by the former Minister for Housing. This is a purpose with which the credit unions can comply. Now we come up against the argument that the provisions of the Homes Savings Grant Act are applicable only to institutions that provide long term credit for home building. As I said before, I am unacquainted with the Cairns Co-operative Weekly Penny Savings Bank which provided housing loans before the stage was reached where a certain amount had to be put into a homes savings account. I do not know how many “ pennies “ were required to build a home through that bank.
But what is the proportion of their funds that the savings banks provide for housing? As 1 said, only 24 per cent, of the funds can be lent by way of long term loans. A credit union cannot, by the nature of its constitution, make long term loans. I think that this fact is accepted. But credit unions are making a contribution in the field of housing. The Minister has spoken of the “ buoyancy of the building industry today “. This buoyancy simply does not exist. To say that it does is to bury one’s head in the sand. This can be proved by a comparison of the present figures and the figures for a low building month. 1 direct the attention of the Minister to the Adelaide “ News “ of yesterday’s date. An article in that newspaper quoted Mr. Martin, who is the Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia, as saying that 150 carpenters are out of work. He described them as starving because they are on unemployment relief, which does not provide for their needs at this time. These men are seeking employment in Tasmania because they believe that more opportunity for employment exists there. That is the situation in South Australia at the present time.
Only this week, I. had to make application to the banks in Adelaide to secure a housing loan. I. found that before the Commonwealth Savings Bank will consider an application for money for housing, the applicant must have saved $1,000 in that bank for a period of 12 months. This is not an essential requirement with the State Bank of South Australia, which is the other big money lending institution for housing in that State. But there is a waiting list of 18 months from the time that approval is given to an application until the grant is made by the State Bank of South Australia. That is the position that I discovered this week in my own State.
It is essential that more money be provided for housing at this time. Let us assume, that I put my money in a savings bank and; saved sufficient for the purpose of obtaining a government grant for housing. I know that because of my age I would not qualify, but let us assume, disregarding my age, that I am eligible in respect of all the other essential qualifications. There is no guarantee that I will receive my loan from the bank where I bank my money for the purposes of the grant. The same situation applies to any applicant. After receiving the government grant following the saving of the required sum, the applicant may have to go to another institutution - it could be an insurance company or a private finance organisation - for the purpose of obtaining a further loan. So, the banking of money at a particular bank is not for the purpose of obtaining a loan from that bank. But the Homes Savings Grant Act requires that an applicant for a grant must deposit his money in a special account in a bank for the purposes of receiving the homes savings grant.
Two points arise regarding the matter we are debating. Credit unions are not accepted as falling within the definition in the Act of approved organisations. Secondly, the method adopted by credit unions in obtaining finance from their members is not in the form of a special account to comply with the requirements of the Act which seeks to encourage people to save for the purchase of a home. If the grant was payable to people who save their money in a credit, union, credit unions would be able to make a bigger contribution to home lending at this time. Quite respectfully, I say to the Minister, as did Senator Cohen, that this state of affairs has been challenged. A strong case has been made out for the inclusion of credit unions in the provisions of the Act. Every Government speaker in this debate has attempted to avoid the issue. There has been no reply to our argument. The responsibility rests on the Minister to give us a more detailed reply than she has. It is not enough to say that the question has arisen before. It has arisen now at a time when more money is needed to provide long term credit for home building.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [9.61. - First of all, I wish to draw the attention of Senator Cavanagh to thi “ Hansard “ report of the debate on the Homes Savings Grant Bill 1964 and particularly to the remarks of the then Minister for Housing, Mr. Bury. If I understood the honorable senator’s remarks correctly, he seemed to be unaware of the fact that when the subject of credit unions was discussed in another place at the time of the introduction of that Bill, the then Minister for Housing said -
One of the basic purposes of the homes savings grants scheme, on the other hand, is to encourage savings for homes in institutions which provide long term finance for housing . . .
I draw the honorable senator’s attention to that statement because, from what he said, I felt that he was not aware of what the Minister said.
– ls the Minister talking about homes or houses?
– This legislation as indicated by the previous Minister in the speech to which I have just referred is concerned with the acquisition of homes. This is what the homes savings grants scheme sets out to do. It assists people to get homes. I accept that credit unions do lend a large proportion of their available funds for things to do with homes. Senator Cavanagh. Senator Murphy and Senator Cohen are probably correct in saying that credit unions lend at least the same proportion of their funds for housing as the savings banks do. But let me emphasise the significant difference between lending by savings banks for housing and lending by credit unions for housing. The average housing loan made by a savings bank is close to §7.000. I doubt very much whether the average so called housing loan by a credit union is for more than SI. 000.
Senator Cavanagh and Senator Murphy have endeavoured to show that credit unions lend al least the same proportion of their funds for housing as the savings banks do. Depending upon the definition of lending for housing, this may well be correct. But a check carried out with a number of largs credit unions in New South Wales has revealed the fact that the order of popularity of loans by credit unions is: 1. Home extensions and improvements - extra rooms, garages, repairs, etc; 2. Car purchases and repairs; 3. Furniture and household appliances; 4. Consolidation of hire purchase debts; and 5. Medical and dental bills. In other words, I would say to the Committee that savings banks and building societies lend for the acquisition of homes. Credit unions lend for home extensions and improvements. The latter form of lending is not the objective envisaged in the Homes Savings Grant Act which provides grants for the acquisition of homes.
What if the savings banks do invest 65 per cent, or more of their funds in Commonwealth and semi government securities, as was mentioned earlier? This money provides funds for our advances under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. It provides funds also for water, sewerage, roads and electricity for the homes that are being built. Deposits with credit unions provide funds for many useful purposes in connection with the home. Indeed the credit unions are providing a great service. But the savings banks and the building societies provide the funds that make it possible for the building of these homes.
I say to Senator Cohen, who said that I did not reply earlier to this matter, and also to Senator Turnbull who has made this statement, that in the first remarks 1 made I did reply to the argument. I said that I had received a deputation. I said also that I had received a submission. I am studying this submission. Surely that is the answer that I gave earlier. I repeat it now.
– 1 rise to take part in this debate because I do not think the statements made by the Minister up to date in answer to the charges levelled at the Government’s policy and administration of the housing portfolio have been satisfactory, having regard to the serious problem that faces the younger generation of Australians, in particular, in securing finance for homes. The Minister, in her reply, stated that the former Minister for Housing, when introducing the Homes Savings Grant Bill, referred to the fact that its purpose was to encourage savings by younger couples and that it was particularly designed for institutions that provide long term loans for housing. She went on to say that, generally speaking, credit unions lend money for home extension purposes and matters of that nature.
When we read in papers presented to the Parliament with the Budget that the rate of home building declined by 1 per cent, in the previous 12 months compared with an 18 per cent, increase in the 12 months before that, surely there is a necessity for the Minister responsible for housing in the Federal sphere lo find new ways and means of tackling this very serious problem. Housing loans, whether they be for long terms or short terms, must be encouraged by the responsible Minister. A short term loan for the purchase of land, fencing, sewerage connection and matters of that kind could well be the deciding factor in a married couple obtaining a home promptly or having to wail a considerable period in order to save up and then to be in a position lo approach a lending institution to obtain bridging finance. One must consider the effect that the failure of the Government in this regard is having on the younger generations of Australians.
Recently 1 received a letter from the Secretary of the Illawarra County Council Employees Credit. Union. She pointed out to me that she believed that the only country in which credit unions had to pay income tax was Australia. These organisations are established for the purpose of assisting their members financially. Yet Australia is the only country that imposes income tax on them. She went on to say that her members were concerned about the homes savings grant situation. She said that many of the younger employees of the Council were hesitant to join the credit union because, if they put money in it, they would not qualify for the homes savings grant under the present legislation. This is occurring at a time when, whilst there was an 18 per cent, increase in home construction in the financial year before last, according lo the Budget papers presented by the Federal Treasurer (Mr. McMahon), there has been a decline of 1 per cent, in the rate of home construction. 1 suggest that the answers given by the Minister to my colleagues up to date have been most unsatisfactory. Surely it is the responsibility of the Government to search for ways and means of overcoming the housing crisis that has developed. Surely the Minister has a responsibility to search for ways and means of reducing the cost of housing. On 25th August of this year I directed to the Minister for Housing a ques tion regarding the huge stockpile of bricks which existed in Sydney and which was caused principally by a decline in the rate of home construction. Despite that great stockpile, of bricks, the brick manufacturers imposed an increase in the price of bricks that would give them a very substantial profit on the bricks that were in the stockpile waiting to be used by people seeking homes. I thought it was appropriate to see what action the Government or the Minister intended to take to protect the value of the homes savings grant of £250. But, surprisingly, the Minister in replying, did not answer one part of my question, including whether the Government intended to take any action to protect the value of the grant from reduction as a result of the increase in the price of bricks.
This matter affects not only younger Australians but also our migrants. Not very long ago. Dr. R. T. Appleyard produced a pamphlet on the subject “ Low cost housing and the migrant population “. One of the conclusions that he reached was that migrant families commence the search for housing under a considerable handicap because the high rents demanded by the majority of private lessors can easily consume the real income differential thai most migrant families expect to earn when they settle in Australia. Despite these matters, the task of solving the problem is completely ignored by the Government. The Government also adopts a negative attitude to the recognition of credit unions for the purposes of the Homes Savings Grant Act.
I should like the Minister to explain whether any section of her Department keeps a check on the prices of building materials used in the construction of homes and flats. I should also like her to explain why income tax is imposed on credit unions, if it is imposed on them, and why relief from that situation cannot be granted. Having regard to the answers that she has already given to questions asked by my colleagues as to why the Government will not recognise credit unions for the purpose of the Homes Savings Grant Act - to the effect that they are not organisations or institutions that lend money on long terms - and the importance of these organisations in that they could well mean the difference between young people getting a start and not getting a start, I ask her why the
Government will not accede to the Opposition’s request.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [9.18]. - Senator McClelland raised the matter of income tax. That, of course, is a matter for the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon), not for me. He also referred to the prices of bricks and other building materials. As he knows, the Commonwealth has no control over prices. 1 believe that that answers his specific questions.
Question put -
That the words proposed to be added (Senator Poke’s amendment) be added.
The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Wedgwood.)
AYES: 23
NOES: 23
Majority . . . . -
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Proposed expenditure and proposed provision noted.
Progress reported.
page 862
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
No Question or Amendment shall be proposed which is the same in substance as any Question or Amendment which, during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the Order, Resolution, or Vote on such Question or Amendment has been rescinded:
There follows another paragraph which has no bearing on this matter. 1 ask for your ruling because, as the Senate is aware, a Bill on repatriation was before us one week ago tonight and was the same in substance as the Bill which has come to us from ano:her place. An amendment was moved lo the first Bill and there has been extreme activity in another place in that connection. Some unusual procedures have been followed but I think it is quite certain that the Bill which has come to us is the same in substance as the Bill with which the Senate dealt only one week ago. I seek your ruling on my contention that this Bill which has been sent to us from the House of Representatives is out of order in the terms of Standing Order No. 133.
When a Motion has been made and seconded, a question thereupon shall be proposed to the Senate by the President. 1 draw attention to that order because it is very clearly related to Standing Order No. 133 which deals with questions or amendments. In the Bill which passed through this Senate last week, questions were proposed to the Senate by you as the Deputy President. These questions included motions for the first, second and third readings and motions relating to amendments that were put in the Committee at various stages including the particular amendment the Senate carried on that occasion. My submission is that the term “question” under Standing Order No. 133 includes any motion that was proposed to the Senate for the first, second or third readings, or any motion put in relation to any of the amendments including those that were not carried and the particular amendment that was carried. Standing Order No. 133 has a proviso which, I would suggest, does not and cannot apply in the present circumstances. It reads -
Provided that this Standing Order shall not operate to prevent the proposal of a motion for the disallowance of a Regulation or Ordinance substantially the’ same in effect as one previously disallowed during the same Session.
In other words, the only exceptions to Standing Order No. 133 are those that are contained in the proviso, and they relate to motions for the disallowance of a regulation or an .ordinance. We are dealing here with a Bill. Clearly, it is not covered by the proviso and, I would submit, it is clearly comprehended in the first part of Standing Order No. 133. Standing. Order No. 134 makes it plain that in order to secure the rescission of any order, resolution or other vote of the Senate - 1 submit that that clearly covers what took place here last week - what is required is seven days’ notice and a vote of at least one half of the whole number of senators in favour of the rescission. It is plain enough that seven days’ notice has not been given here and therefore the other conditions compliance with which is called for in Standing Order No. 134 have not been complied with in the present instance. For this reason I would support the point that has been taken by the Leader of the Opposition, and I submit to you, Mr. Deputy President, that your ruling should be that it is not competent to present this question.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman). - I wish to advise honorable senators that I have examined this Bill in the light of the application of Standing Order No. 133, which provides that no question shall be proposed which is the same in substance as one upon which a decision has already been given during the same session. 1 have noted that there are certain differences between the Senate Bill and the Bill now received from the House of Representatives. In any event, the same question rule contained in Standing Order No. 133 is not strictly applied to Bills. For the information of the Senate, I quote ruling 69 by former President Givens, as follows - ‘ ‘ ‘
The Unlawful Assemblies Bill having been passed by the Senate and sent to the House of Representatives, and having been there laid aside, another measure sent by the House of Representatives to the Senate being the same in substance as the earlier Bill, is in order, notwithstanding Standing Order 133. While the rule against reviving the same question in the same session generally holds good, it is not strictly applied with regard to Bills.
I agree with that ruling. To rule otherwise would, in my view negate the deadlock provisions in section 57 of the Constitution, which can only be brought into operation in respect of bills originating in the House of Representatives. For those reasons, I rule that the Repatriation Bill now received from the House of Representatives is properly before the Senate and in order.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator McKellar) read a first time.
– I move -
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Government’s Budget proposals in the repatriation, field. The Bill appropriates the amount necessary from the Consolidated Revenue Fund iri connection with the amendments the Bill makes and which will come into force from the date on which the Act receives the Royal Assent. The Bill provides for an amendment to the Second Schedule to the Repatriation Act to give effect to an increase of $2 per week in the special - T.P.I. - rate of pension which in future will be $30.50 per week. Following the increase in the special - T.P.I. - rate of pension, the additional amounts payable to certain amputees under the first six items of the Fifth Schedule to the Repatriation Act are being increased by $2 a week to $18.50.
The intermediate rate war pension provided for in the First Schedule to the
Repatriation Act will also be increased by $1 per week to $21.25. The Bill also provides for an amendment to the First Schedule to the Repatriation Act to give effect to an increase of $1 per week in the rate of pension for a war widow, the new rate being $13 per week. The Bill also provides advances in the service pension area. The first is the insertion in the Repatriation Act of a provision in line with the provision being made to ease the income means test for social service pensioners with children. This will provide that, when assessing the rate of service pension a member service pensioner is eligible to receive under the means test provisions, a deduction of $3 per week will be made from the income of the ex-serviceman in respect of each dependent child. This easing of the means test in relation to income will represent a substantial benefit to the family man who is either aged or seriously disabled, or both, and who still has the responsibility of providing for his dependent child or children.
An entirely new benefit which the Bill introduces for member service pensioners is the payment of up to twelve weeks arrears of service pension to a patient discharged after treatment in a mental hospital. Hitherto a member service pensioner, on admission to a mental hospital, has had his service pension continued but at a reduced rate known as the institutional rate. On discharge his service pension has been increased to its former rate, or such rate as was then applicable having regard to the means test provisions. For the future, the service pensioner will receive on discharge a lump sum payment of the difference between his normal rate of service pension and the institutional rate. This will apply in respect of periods of up to twelve weeks and, of course, his normal continuing rate of payment will be resumed.
The opportunity is being taken in this Bill to make a necessary minor amendment to the Repatriation Act resulting from a beneficial appeal provision introduced in 1963. That provision was made by introducing a new section - the present section 64 (I a) - into the Act. To ensure uniformity in operative dates of appeals decisions, references to the new section should have been made in section 78. This has been done in the present Bill. It is a technical drafting amendment as to which further information can be supplied, if required, at the Committee stage. The opportunity is also being taken to convert to decimal currency references to rates and amounts of money appearing throughout the Repatriation Act.
Again this year, these Budget repatriation measures confer valuable benefits on repatriation pensioners. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.
– We now have before us a Bill which ostensibly is different from one which we debated a week ago. I shall deal with that matter as I proceed. The Senate now has before it a Bill which seeks, amongst other things, to increase the pension for total and permanent incapacity to $30.50 per week. This increased amount is still below the basic wage, which is $32.80 per week. This could hardly be said to be a very generous provision. The Bill also seeks to grant other minor increases which honorable senators, if they listened attentively - they were not given a copy of the Minister’s second reading speech - would have heard the Minister mention.
As we clearly demonstrated here last week, there are a lot of features of this Bill with which we do not agree. Last week Senator Bishop moved a series of amendments. I shall remind the Senate of them. We sought the appointment of a joint committee to review the whole of the Repatriation Act. We believe that the Act is in such bad shape that it is not doing what it ought to be doing. The provision of repatriation benefits has become so controversial and unsatisfactory that it is time that a committee of members of both Houses of the Parliament was appointed to review the Act and to make recommendations to the Government to enable it to give a fair deal to those who should come within its operation. The totally and permanently incapacitated person, the most seriously handicapped person of all, still is not allowed to receive the basic wage. As honorable senators know, nowadays the basic wage is more or less pegged; it does not conform to the concept of the early days. Few people in industry exist solely on the basic wage. When we note that even able bodied people do not have to exist on the basic wage and when we compare their lot with that of persons who will never be able to earn a living, it can be seen that it is time that somebody had a look at the Act.
We were not even satisfied that that was sufficient to bring the Act up to date. Last Thursday night Senator Bishop submitted a proposal which sought the automatic acceptance of cancer as establishing eligibility for a pension in the same way that tuberculosis has been accepted. Moreover, in relation to the onus of proof, we asked for provision to be made for an appeal to the High Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. Over the years the Government has directed attention to the onus of proof provision in the Act, but there is not one honorable senator who day after day does not have placed before him ample evidence that this provision is not working efficiently. We asked that the wife of a T.P.I, pensioner be given the same rights as the wife of a pensioner who is eligible for benefits under the pensioner medical scheme. I do not intend to argue these matters. Senator Bishop advanced the relevant arguments last week. The amendments themselves emphasise the injustice that is being done.
Moreover, we proposed that medical and hospital benefits be extended to exservicemen of the First World War and the Boer War. This proposal was accepted by the Senate. The Bill was then forwarded to the House of Representatives. Since then the Government has performed certain gyrations - I shall deal with them in a moment or two - to get around this very simple and very gentle provision that Senator Bishop was successful in having included in the original Bill. We are not dealing with that Bill tonight, but nevertheless we must keep it in mind. Fortunately or unfortunately - I am not sure which - the members of another place had both Bills before them.
We could now ask Senator Bishop to go through all the motions that he went through last week. That is really what the Government has invited us to do, because a few moments ago it asserted that we now have before us a new Bill. If we were to follow the procedures that are applicable to a new measure, we would ask Senator Bishop, on behalf of the Australian Labour Party, to make another second reading speech, to point out all the ramifications of the measure and what is wrong with it, and then to move an amendment embracing the proposals which I have just detailed. We do not intend to do that. We are prepared to accept the decision made by the Senate on Thursday last. The Government rejected certain amendments on that occasion, and we accept that fact. But the Government has not accepted what the Senate did with the rest of the original Bill. We regard the Senate as being one half of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. When it makes a decision, we expect that decision to be noted. We do not intend to follow the Government into the subterfuges that it has employed in the last two or three days to get around the decision of one half of the Parliament.
I cannot speak for those in this chamber who are not members of the Australian Labour Party. It is well known that the two members of the Democratic Labour Party and Senator Turnbull, who is an Independent, supported the motion that we were successful in moving. If we adopted a purist attitude and did what the Government, in effect, is asking us to do, we would again go through all the procedures that we went through last week. As I said, we do not intend to do so. If we did that, we would be doing the very thing that this Government is doing. The Government has become stubborn over one of the mildest amendments that I have ever seen submitted to this House. We will treat this House and the other place, indeed the Parliament as a whole, with the dignity and respect that they ought to be shown. We are not prepared to manipulate for ulterior purposes. We could do so with justification in the present circumstances because we are in a pre-election period. That is the atmosphere in which we are at the moment.
We did not challenge your ruling tonight, Mr. Deputy President. We could have done so quite legitimately, but we did not do so because we believe that this debate should not be debased any more than it has been already. It is quite useless to adopt a purist attitude and to say that we have only one Bill in our minds. We all are quite familiar with the present situation. At the moment we have before us a Bill which has been transmitted from the House of Representatives. The original Bill originated in this
House. We amended it and sent it to the other place. So far the other place has refused even to deal with it. The other House had an opportunity to deal with it at a later hour on the day it left here. The other place did not choose to do this. Instead, the Government introduced another Bill which is different in three respects. One is a minor difference. It is to be found in clause 8. which merely deals with the date from which a pension should be paid for inmates of mental institutions. The second amendment, which is to be found in clause 9, deals wilh an omission from the earlier legislation. I shall read it in a moment or two. The third difference is the inclusion of an appropriation clause, on which the Government is now hanging its political hat.
What has caused all these manipulations and gyrations on the part of the Government? Let me read to the Senate the amendment that Senator Bishop successfully moved last week. I ask honorable senators to note the words of the amendment very carefully, because Senator McManus stressed them during his speech. Senator Bishop moved, in part, for the insertion of the following new clause -
The Commission may-
I emphasise the word “ may “ - subject to such conditions as it from lime to time determines, provide medical and hospital treatment for a member of the Forces as defined in section twenty-three of this Act and for a person to which section one hundred and twenty of this Act applies . . .
The references to section 23 and section .120 are, in fact, references to members of the Forces in the 1914-18 war, and the South African war. It was not a dictatorial suggestion that we made. The motion said that the Commission “ may “ act, under conditions that the Commission itself was to fix. Honorable senators opposite may talk about the millions of dollars it would cost, but it would cost exactly what the Government wanted it to cost. The Government could apply a means test or do any one of a dozen things, because we left it very open indeed. That is the crux of the whole matter. It is not a question of fixing an appropriation.
Everybody knows that the inclusion of an appropriation clause is merely a subterfuge, a parliamentary device to get around the - problem. The point is that in two successive years the Opposition, representing three different shades of political thought, and with the assistance of one Government supporter, has accepted a motion requesting the Government to lake cognisance of the situation of the very old people from the Boer War and World War 1. The Government is refusing to face up to that situation. For some unknown reason it is saying: “ We are not going to do this under any circumstances. No matter what one House of the Parliament does, we are the Government. We are the people sent down from Heaven to govern and we are not going to listen to any suggestion, even when it is carried by such a wide political opinion as is expressed by the honorable senators who voted on the amendment last Thursday night and 12 months ago.”
A decision has been made. The procedure has always been that the Repatriation Bill has been introduced in the chamber in which the Minister for Repatriation sits. If I live to spend many more years in this place I shall never forget Senator Sir Walter Cooper’s proudest moment every year in introducing the Repatriation Bill, because he was so devoted to repatriation causes. The portfolio passed from the honorable senator to Mr. Swartz in the House of Representatives and during his period as Minister for Repatriation the Repatriation Bill originated in the House of Representatives. When Senator McKellar of the Australian Country Party came to be Minister for Repatriation, following the system that has been practised over the years, the Repatriation Bill originated in the Senate. That is what happened this year. The only difference now is that the Bill before us has had included in it quite unnecessarily an appropriation clause. I suppose that in the next few weeks we will be faced with the query: Where is the money coming from?
The money has been coming for as long as repatriation legislation has been introduced. There has been an annual appropriation for repatriation purposes which, with supply, makes provision for expenditure until November of each year. It has never before been necessary to include an appropriation clause in the Repatriation Bill. There has been no query about money. When the Budget was introduced this year there was no query about increasing the defence vote by $250 million. Nobody said: “ We cannot afford to do this “, as is being said now. It seems that it is quite all right to vote an extra $250 million for tha purposes of war. but not to vote a small amount of money - it could be as little as a few million dollars - to do something for the people who require treatment as a result of fighting wars, lt is 67 years since the Boer War started and nobody who fought in that war would be a spring chicken today. The Government refuses to do anything about these people or to accept a decision of one half of this Parliament.
What does the Government plan to do about the soldiers it has sent to Vietnam? What does it plan to do in respect of repatriation? Servicemen who return from Vietnam cannot have much to look forward to when veterans of a war which began 67 years ago are not to receive their entitlements - not for a pension, but for medical and hospital treatment. Senator Turnbull is a general practitioner in current practice. He is able to speak on this subject with tremendous authority. He clearly described the procedure observed at repatriation hospitals in respect of people taking barium meals. The policy has developed of putting these people into hospital. No general practitioner ever does that. No patient of a general practitioner ever occupies a hospital bed for even one hour while such a check-up is conducted with the modern scientific techniques of today. Senator Turnbull made the point very clearly that in all probability check-ups could be conducted without one penny of expenditure. He is not a doctor who has been away from practice for a long time and he is able to inform the Senate from his experience of what is going on. 1 have had complaints over the years, letters concerning which are in my files today, confirming what Senator Turnbull has said.
The Opposition is not making a suggestion which would involve the Government in increasingly large expenditure. We are simply saying to the Government that so long after the Boer War and World War II it should be doing something for people who are well past middle age. They are a rapidly diminishing race of old people. The other point the Opposition has been trying to get across to the Government is that while it. is moving into wars such as tint in Vietnam and is giving new thought to ways of conscription, it should also be thinking in terms of looking after these people involved in the fighting. The obligation has not diminished because the Government now conscripts people to go to war. I suggest in all seriousness to the Government that an obligation rests much more heavily on its shoulders than it did in any previous war. In view of the stubborn attitude adopted at this stage by the Government, I ask whether there is any hope of adequate repatriation benefits for soldiers fighting at this very hour in Vietnam.
The same amendment was before the Senate 12 months ago. The Government has had plenty of time to think about it. The Opposition has had plenty of time to repent if it thought now that no Government should be asked to accept the amendment. Twelve months ago the Labour Party, the two Democratic Labour Party senators, Senator Turnbull, the independent senator, and Senator Wright of the Liberal Party, combined to place the amendment in tha Bill. It was rejected by the Government in the House of Representatives. When the Bill was sent back to the Senate, Senator Wright decided not to persist in aiding tha Opposition or insisting that the amendment be included in the Bill. To be fair to Senator Wright, 1 shall give his reasons, as I understood them, in a few moments. Senator Wright withdrew his support. The amendment therefore was excluded and the original Bill was passed.
Some hot and angry words were said in the House of Representatives regarding the amendment. I suppose that if Senator McKellar were a sensitive person he could have taken it personally. H/s could have become very upset about it, but to his eternal credit he had this to say on 30th September of last year-
To dispel some of the doubts that have arisen since the amendment was moved, 1 say, first, that this is not a money bill and secondly, that in spits of what has been said elsewhere, the Senate did what it had a perfect right to do, namely, to amend the Bill in the manner in which it was amended.
Honorable senators who have been here as long as 1 have, or longer, should’ be convinced, surely, that since I have been here I have been a great stickler for the rights of the Senate. 1 hope that I always shall be. This is one of the reasons why
I say thai- we acted as we had a perfect right to do. I feel that were we to persist in refusing to agree to this amendment we would not be fulfilling the function of the Senate, as I understand it, and 1 shall give some of the reasons for this.
I have quoted that last passage because in the best traditions of advocacy one should always put both sides of a case. 1 want to be fair to Senator McKellar and to indica*e that he went on to say something to the effect that we should not persist with the amendment. However, 1 emphasise that he was of the opinion that we had acted completely in accordance with parliamentary traditions and in a proper parliamentary manner in amending the Bill.
The difference between that occasion and this is that on the former occasion the House of Representatives sent the Bill back and told us that it was not going to accept the amendment. The Senate then agreed to the Bill, in the manner which I have already outlined. Senator McKellar said that last year’s Bill was not a money Bill. It is a case of the old conundrum - when is a money bill not a money bill? Apparently it is a money bill when a clause is inserted stating that it is proposed to appropriate money. Actually, there was no necessity to appropriate money because as 1 have pointed out, the money was already available in all those mechanics of the Treasury which I find so hard to understand. The money always was available. There was no need to turn this into a technical money bill merely by adding the last clause. On the recent occasion, Senator Wright abstained from voting. In other words, he took action which enabled the amendment to become a part of the Bill. Now, a decision has to bc reached once again.
As I understand Senator Wright’s attitude to this matter, he has used the delaying proceedings of the Senate. He maintains that when a deadlock occurs between the two Houses this is the chamber which should give way and that the popularly elected House, or the House with power in relation to money bills, ought to be the one finally to win the day. Whatever may be the validity of that argument, I suggest that it comes under challenge because of the repetitive nature of the procedure that is occurring with this Bill. I think that there may be something in Senator Wright’s argument. It certainly satisfies htm, but when there is a situation in which a delay of 12 months occurs, after exactly the same decision by a wide variety of political thought in Australia, I think that Senator Wright’s argument is challenged by the very stubbornness of the Government itself. If this procedure had been followed once and we had reached a deadlock there might be something in Senator Wright’s argument, but are we to go on for ever in this way? What is the purpose of our being allowed to move amendments at all if this is the procedure that is to be followed? The Government merely says: “All right. We will put in an appropriation clause whether it. is necessary or not.” That is merely using words and the forms of the House to thwart the will of the Parliament, and nothing more. To make the Bill a money bill is merely to put out a smoke screen. The Government has adopted a subterfuge to get around a solemn decision reached i.i two years running by half of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
When I read the amendment a few moments ago I emphasised the words “ The Commission may, subject to such conditions as it from time to time determines “. Surely that is the most gentle amendment that any Government has ever been asked to accept. There is no bullying in it. There is no dictation and there is no dictatorial attitude. The Repatriation Committee of the Australian Labour Party, in which this amendment had its genesis, is composed of men who are completely devoted to the purposes of repatriation. They know the problems that are involved. They know that the Government of the day has a responsibility, and therefore they used in the amendment wording which must be strange in the annals of political history, because politics generally is not as gentle as that. The amendment makes no bullying approach at all.
We of the Opposition have taken a responsible attitude to this matter. We had the potential to challenge the Government on other points, but we did not do so. For instance, we could have disagreed with the Deputy President’s ruling. We could have opposed the motion to suspend so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent the Bill from passing through all stages without delay, but that would have put the Government back into a maze of Standing Orders and would have made this position much more difficult. The Government has introduced this Bill with the implication that it wishes to obtain the royal assent by 4th October and to have payments at the new rates made by 6th October, but of course that could have been done in any event. It was not necessary to introduce this Bill to do that. Ali that the Government needed to do in order to obtain the royal assent by 4th October and to be able to make payments at the increased rates by 6th October was to proceed with the Bill that was sent from the Senate to the House of Representatives last week. That is what it should have done.
If the Government had observed the normal procedure there would be no time factor hanging over our heads. The Government could have done that just as easily as it has adopted the procedure of introducing a new bill. To set up and print a new bill is a device which is very unworthy of the Government. If we were to take the lead that it has invited us to take in suggesting that we should treat this Bill as a completely new bill and debate it as though we had never heard of it before, we would be living in a sort of “ Alice in Wonderland “ atmosphere. For Senator Bishop to move all over again the amendments which he moved previously would be playing the game as the Government is playing it, and we are not prepared to do that.
All that we have done is to accept the will of the Senate. We have asked the House of Representatives to accept the will of the Senate. We are prepared to take the rebuffs that we suffered in relation to our amendments last Thursday night. We ask - in fact we insist - that the House of Representatives deal with our Bill. The Government also should accept the will of the Senate and restore to the Bill the provision which we in this place decided should be inserted and which, after all, does so little for exservicemen and women 67 years after one war and 50 years after another war. We suggest that is something which any humane government would have done without going through all the gyrations and manoeuvres that we have seen this week in the Federal Parliament.
– There are one or two matters with which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) dealt to which I want to refer. Despite his reference to the mechanics of the Treasury, this is in fact an appropriation Bill to appropriate money to provide the benefits covered by the Bill. The appropriation is contained within the Budget. Over a certain number of years - I think 12 years altogether - out of courtesy to Senator Sir Walter Cooper, who was the Minister for Repatriation, and because of his great knowledge of repatriation matters and because of appreciation for what he had done, the Repatriation Bill was introduced in this House. He was the Minister, but the House understood the reasons for this, lt understood that it was appropriating and spending money. The House accepted the Repatriation Bills in that spirit. The money was in the appropriation account. That is well understood.
– Why does not the Minister state the facts?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order!
– This Bill appropriates the amount of money that is provided for in the Budget. We have a Budget which has been given a great deal of consideration by the Government and which at this stage is $270 million in deficit.
I wish to make one other point. This procedure means that the Repatriation Bill is being treated in the same way as the Social Services Bill has always been treated in respect of the expenditure on pensions, lt has been treated as a money bill and has come up from the House of Representatives. That is the manner in which this Bill is being treated because in fact this Bill deals with an appropriation for repatriation purposes which are provided for in tha Budget. Any increase in expenditure provided for in this Bill is an increase in the Government’s Budget. No government, whatever its political shade, could allow the total amount of its Budget to be spent other than as the Government decided. We all have our wishes in these matters. We all have our own ideas as to how we would spend any additional money that became available.
Let me point out that to accept the proposal that we are considering would involve recurrent annual expenditure of $2i million and capital expenditure of $5 million. That is the best estimate that I can get from the Repatriation Department. The Opposition is advocating that this money should be spent in a certain way. I think that is being done for political purposes. That is only my opinion, but I express it as I am entitled to express it. The priority that the members of the Opposition have in mind is not my priority. If we had an extra $2i million to spend each year, I think that war widows with three children would be entitled to be considered before men who are excluded because of the operations of the means test.
– They are not excluded. . .
– Yes, they are. This is a proposal to’ extend hospital and medical benefits to these men’.
– Not necessarily.
– Mr. .Deputy President
– The Minister cannot get anyone to listen to him.
– Mr. Deputy President, I am replying to the Leader of: the Opposition. He was heard in complete silence and I ask you to see that there is silence while I am speaking.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! I ask honorable senators to observe silence and I point out that good manners and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary debate.
– I was saying that the proposition put forward by the Opposition is that medical and hospital benefits should be made available to veterans of the Boer War and the 1914-18 War in respect of any sickness air illness whatever, even if it is not war-caused. As I have said, a great number of’ these men are at present excluded from this because of the operations of the means test. They are excluded from receiving repatriation pensions because they have private means. Because they are not qualified to receive pensions, they are not qualified to receive the other benefits.
As I have said, I have my priorities and other people have theirs. A war widow with three children is to receive a pension of S24 a week. If there were extra money available, my vote would be in favour of giving her a little more. I would give her a higher priority than these men who, as I say, are excluded because of the opera tions of the means test. 1 would vote in favour of giving an increase to T.P.I, diggers who have no private income at all.
– Why don’t you? ,
– That is what I would do if we had an extra $H million, but we have not.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Senator Henty, I suggest ‘that in order to get silence you should address the Chair.
– Very well. 1 was saying what I would do if we had an extra $2i million per annum. to spend. Wc have not, but if we had my priority would not go to the .people whom the Opposition suggests but to those whom I have mentioned. I believe that many of these diggers would have the .same idea as 1 have. They would say: “1 have private means. This mate of mine is living on the T.P.I, pension. 1 would rather that he got a bit more if there is en additional $24 million available “. Many of ..these men would say that they would sooner see the money go to increase the pensions of the widows of their mates rather than to themselves.
Why confine this proposal to men who fought in the Boer War and in the 1914-18 War? What about the men of the 1939-45 War?
– That will come later.
– That is quite right. However, if there was any logic in the Opposition’s case, it would suggest the inclusion of the men of the 1939-45 War. The Opposition suggests that the only people to be covered should be these people who are excluded by the means test. I repeat again, that in my view there are others who have higher priorities.
The facts of life are that we have a Budget. Let me remind the House that the federal body of the Returned Services League is the only such body that has complete access to a Cabinet sub-committee. Every year it has the privilege of coming here to put its case to Cabinet, and it does so. The Government, having ascertained how much is available for the Budget, comes to certain decisions about how much can be spent on this and that. In arriving at our decisions this year, we went $270 million in deficit. The proposition I put to the Senate is that this is now a money bill. It has always, in fact, been a part of the Budget. This Government cannot - no government could - accept from this House any proposal involving an increase in Budget expenditure. The Budget must be either accepted or defeated.
– In part.
– No, not in part. The Senate could do one thing or the other. The great privilege that this House has is that it can accept or not accept the Budget. If it feels, as a States House, that the States are suffering because of a Budget, it can throw that Budget out. We have that power here, but we cannot amend moneybills and increase Budgets.
– Could the Minister tell us how the Department worked out the $2i million?
– That is the only figure that I have received from the Repatriation Department. That is the figure thai has been quoted by the Minister. I do not think that he would have given it if he had not believed it to be correct.
Let me say that 1 listened with great attention to the case made out by the Leader of the Opposition and that I admired the moderation with which he treated this matter. This is perhaps his first big task as Leader of the Opposition, unci 1 like the way that he has made good
Senator BISHOP (South Australia) 1.10. 1. 9]. - The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) has shown the background to the present debate. This must be one of the most extraordinary incidents in the life of Australian Parliaments. Two repatriation bills were in another place. The Government has adopted a different policy from that which it adopted last year in respect of amendments which the Labour Opposition proposed to the repatriation legislation. Last year the Government carried out its usual policy and returned a bill lo the Senate because it would not agree to the amendment proposed by the Senate. This was the amendment that we intended to move in Committee. On this occasion, the Government has used a completely different tactic. It does not feel confident about the approach that it made to this matter last year. During the debate on the Repatriation Bill 1965 in another place, the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, made his contribution to the debate and used two grounds to support his contention. The first ground was based on the Constitution and the second ground was in relation to fiscal policy. These are the two main grounds upon which the Government based its present extraordinary proposal and claims that the Bill now before the Senate is an entirely new Bill. I suggest that all the Government is doing is this: It is using a lactic that should not be used in the Australian Parliament to defeat a clear expression from the Senate of an opinion, which is supported by the Returned Services League, that free medical and hospital benefits should be granted to veterans of the Boer War and the First World War.
Who can argue about this fact? The Leader of the Government devoted most of his speech to the need to consider the merits of the people affected by this proposal. He said that, if he had $3 million, $4 million or $5 million to spare, he would spend it on another section of the community. We know that the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) and Senator Mattner have argued in the same manner. They have said: “ Let the veterans enrol in one of the hospital and medical benefit schemes.” We on this side of the Senate have made our position clear. We have supported plainly, openly and positively the proposition which the Returned Services League put before the exservicemen’s sub-committee of Cabinet. We have made no complaint about this action. We have placed the same arguments before the Senate. We have said that the pension rates are not enough and that they should be adjusted to the level of the basic wage. This was the claim put forward by the R.S.L.
But Senator Wright went one better. He deprecated the relationship between the pension rates and the basic wage and said that people in receipt of repatriation benefits should be given more. That may well be. But the Opposition, without question, pressed the argument that it proposed. Apart from the measures that the R.S.L. has put forward - and these are soundly based - we asked the Senate to consider in relation to our proposition the amount that the Government is spending on defence this financial year. The appropriation for defence this financial year is $1,000 million. How many people could complain justifiably about a provision that gave free hospitalisation and also medical benefits to veterans of the Boer War and the First World War whose average age is now 72 years or 73 years? What justification is there for the argument that these people should enrol in medical or hospital benefits schemes.
The argument put forward by the Opposition has been made clear. It can be shown that the intention of the Government through the medium of its legislation is to protect itself with regard to people whose war service has caused them some physical disabilities. It is common knowledge - this is certainly known to the R.S.L., and it is clear to me - that every person who served in any capacity in the services during wartime has been detrimentally affected because of that service. Who would deny to the veterans to whom I have referred free hospital and medical benefits?
The Government falls back on the argument as to whether it can afford to meet the additional expenditure if these services were provided. I say definitely that this is a specious argument. We know the usual procedure in relation to repatriation benefits. Let us make the distinction here. The Repat riation Act is one of the few Acts on our statute book which contains authority for an appropriation to be made in this respect. Section 113 of the Repatriation Act provides -
All sums of money granted in pursuance of this Act, other than moneys raised under section one hundred and ten or contributed under section one hundred and fourteen, shall be payable out of moneys from time to lime appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.
The Estimates for this financial year are under discussion at this time. Anyone who looks at the estimates for the Repatriation Department will see that in 1965-66 the appropriation for that Department was $267,347,200. Expenditure in the last financial year by the Repatriation Department was $263,640,264, or almost $4 million less than the appropriation. It could be argued that some of this money has been earmarked for work which will continue in the coming years. But the fact is that the Government is not in the position to say that the extra expenditure that would be involved if the provisions of the amendment agreed to by the Senate were put into effect could not be met out of the moneys now available to the Repatriation Department. These are the arguments that the Opposition advances in this matter. We have no doubt that the Government should take notice of the view of the ‘ Senate as expressed in the amendment agreed to in relation to the Repatriation Bill .1966.
What reason is there for arguing that the Minister for Repatriation in the Senate for some reason has less power and influence and is less positive than another Minister in another place? We heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate argue that :it was only out of courtesy to Senator Sir Walter Cooper that the Repatriation portfolio was given to that honorable senator and to the Senate. In addition, the leader of the Government said that Senator Sir Walter Cooper was allowed to introduce repatriation bills. I suggest that this statement only reduces the importance of the Senate in relation to its power in the Australian Parliament.
– It is Alice in Wonderland.
– Yes. If the Senate has any power at all and it is an integral part of our parliamentary system, then it ought to be competent to give its advice and its view to the other place. It has done so on two occasions, and on those two occasions the actions of the Government in relation to the decision of the Senate have been different. The Government’s tactics have changed. I suggest that the manoeuvres will not be supported by the Returned Services League which the Government loudly proclaims is the authority for ex-servicemen; nor will the manoeuvres of the Government be held in high respect. In this regard, Mr. Deputy President, let me quote the views of my own branch of the R.S.L. in South Australia. As is well known, I think, the Australian Labour Party sent, information in relation to these manoeuvres by the Government to all S:ate branches of the Returned Services League and also to the National Secretary of that body. The South Australian members of the Australian Labour Party communicated with the State President of the League in South Australia and pointed out what the manoeuvre of the Government was designed to achieve. The telegram that we sent read -
Commonwealth Government adopting parliamentary device to defeat Senate endorsement of R.S.L. claims for hospitalisation and medical benefits veterans Boer and 1st World War. Representations from League might be fruitful.
That telegram was signed by all South Australian Labour senators. Our intention in taking this action was not to play politics. It was to allow an opportunity for some representations to be made or advice to be given to the Government by the organisation that speaks for ex-servicemen. Tonight, Senator Toohey, on behalf of all Labour senators from South Australia, received a telegram from the Secretary of the South Australian branch of the Returned Services League. I have the permission of Senator Toohey to quote the telegram. It reads -
Whilst appreciating your collecting support for hospitalisation for World War One men we in South Australia are solidly behind our national body in its submissions and appeal to all members of the Senate for some positive action to see justice done.
The telegram is signed “ Eastick “. The Opposition is quite confident that it has put its case in a positive form. The “ Hansard “ reports of the debate in relation to this matter will show that each Labour senator who took part in the discussion expressed support for every proposal which was advanced to the ex-servicemen’s committee of Cabinet by the R.S.L. In addition, certain propositions were written into our amendment. As everybody knows, those propositions have been long standing proposals by the Labour Party. I refer to the amendment seeking the appointment of a standing committee in relation to repatriation - this amendment was defeated - and also the amendment which sought to provide access to the courts of the land where an applicant or an appellant in a repatriation matter felt that the onus of proof provision was not applied to his case. This amendment was defeated also. In moving the last mentioned amendment, we were acting on a decision made by the R.S.L. in 1963. So, in relation to all these matters, we have nothing but confidence. We are convinced that our stand is the correct one.
Debate interrupted.
page 873
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Question resolved in the negative.
page 873
Debate resumed.
– For the reasons that I have given and those that were advanced so well by the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition is satisfied that, by a tactic or manoeuvre, the Government is setting out to subvert the expressed will of the Senate. When an amendment in the same terms as this one was carried last year, it was supported here not only by members of the Opposition but also by members of other parties. It was sent to another place, and the Senate received the usual parliamentary treatment. Perhaps we could have objected to that, but nobody complained about it. However, this year we have not had this indignity thrust upon the Senate, but we are faced with constitutional matters and budgetary problems. A manoeuvre is being employed to defeat the will of the Senate.
How can a Minister in the Senate feel confident about such a manoeuvre? I would not like to be in Senator McKellar’s shoes. I am one of the people who have been to him to make representations, and I must admit that in relation to representations he acts positively and, almost always, quickly. Sometimes our representations are successful. In this regard he is a competent and active Minister. But it would appear to me that in the Government’s view he is, to some extent, a second class Minister and has not the same rights or the same power of initiative as other Ministers. I suggest that this obviously calls for a protest from those members of the Government parties who see some substance in our argument. lt is true, as Senator Willesee has said, that during the debate on last year’s Repatriation Bill Senator McKellar made it clear to us that he agreed that the Senate had power to do what it did, but then he went on to explain - this is recorded in “ Hansard “ - that his position as a Minister demanded that he support the Government’s policy. This year he has been put in the position of seeing a new bill introduced in another place. That new bill purports to be an original repatriation bill. Tn this chamber last week we saw an exhibition of tactical manoeurving, with members of the Government parties - certainly the leaders of the Government parties - frustrating the intentions of the Senate to get the business done. They were trying to play out time.
– By filibustering.
– Yes. The Government employed tactics then in the same way as it is employing tactics on this occasion.
– It brought on a division at about one minute past 8 o’clock.
– That is true. As Senator McClelland has said, not only did the Government prolong the debate with the object of avoiding having a vote of one honorable senator go against it, but very shortly after the dinner suspension the question was put and the test was made.
– At about 5 seconds after 8 o’clock.
– As Senator McClelland says, the question was put some seconds after 8 o’clock. They were the tactics that were employed, but the Govern ment was outdone. I say that this does no credit to the Parliament of Australia. I hope that before this debate finishes some of the people who are more capable and more specialised in the field of law and law making than I am will have something to say about this method of operation of the Parliament. The parliament of a newly emerging country might make these mistakes or use these devices. But this cannot be justified in Australia, under the British form of parliamentary government. I am one who argues in favour of parliamentary democracy.
It is clear to me and to the other members of the Opposition that the Government should be criticised forcibly in this chamber. I hope that .the full record will go to the ex-servicemen’s representative body - the Returned Services League - in order to show, clearly that at least this side of (he. Parliament advanced the aims and objects of that body. We can see no reason at all why the question of this being a money bill and the constitutional arguments should be raised. I suggest that I have shown to you, Mr. Deputy President, that the Government would have been wise to accept our amendment on political grounds. As Senator Willesee said - Senators Gair and McManus also argued this point with some force - our proposed amendment states -
The Commission may, subject to such conditions as it from time to time determines. . .
What sort of impositions does that make upon the Commission? What would the Parliament or the Senate do if the Commission, having been told to apply such a legislative instruction, complained that the instruction could not be carried out for financial reasons?
I believe that the Government is using simply hit and miss figures. It has not satisfied any of us that the estimates that have been made of the cost of this hospital treatment are soundly based. As I have said, I believe that there is very good reason to suggest that, in view of the excess moneys that were provided in last year’s Budget, the amendment that we moved last year could have been accepted without anything untoward happening in respect of that Budget. I suggest that the Senate should seriously consider its position. During the Committee stage I will be moving an amendment.
.- If I were more of a politician than an ordinary man, I would rise to speak at a much later stage of this debate. I hope I will be understood to be speaking in all humility when I say it is quite obvious that for -a number of years I have persevered to preserve an unquestioned right of judgment on the part of the individual member of Parliament, representing a section of electors, as he does. In my view, that is the very essence or the very being of representative parliamentary democracy. If I were inclined to engage in politics at all now, I would reserve what I have to say until Senator Bishop has moved the amendment that is the pivot of this debate. It is now apparent that, because of- my withdrawal from a division last Thursday, this chamber carried an amendment that is unacceptable to the House of Representatives, which supports the decision of the Government to reject the substance of that amendment. 1 speak in this chamber tonight with, I hope, a sense of appreciation of the quality and balance of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee). 1 speak with an appreciation of the speech that came from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty). If 1 may do so without provocation, I say that anybody who has had the experience of discussing repatriation matters in a crucial form with the present Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) will accord to him a status that is anything but that of a second class Minister, such as Senator Bishop suggested. Senator McKellar is a Minister who can discuss matters of intense and fundamental difference, even with a colleague, and exhibit no resentment or lack of respect. I, too, experienced great resentment but have never questioned my independence of viewpoint in accordance with Liberal policy as I claim it. I feel very appreciative of the elevated outlook of a Minister who takes that attitude in discussion of parliamentary measures. Permit me to say that in retort to what fell from Senator Bishop.
– He said the Minister for Repatriation was being treated like a second class Minister. That was the tenor of his remarks.
– Thank you. I may have misheard what was said. I say that only by way of preliminary. It will be tedious for the Senate to hear mp say that this Senate is not half of the Parliament when its position is correctly stated. We come here to exercise the constitutional rights of the Senate. In a certain era before the 1950’s, the Senate had become reputed to be an echo of forces elsewhere. But with the aid of proportional representation and a spirit on the part of honorable senators to mould the debate in this place in such a fashion as to take a proper constitutional part in the legislation of the Parliament, the Senate can make a contribution in the interest of .the people of Australia. But whether it brings me disparagement, discredit or credit I have always maintained in this place that a senator has to be conscious of the constitutional authority that he exercises.
When it comes to the appropriation of money or the imposition of taxation, the Senate is not in a position in any way parallel with the House of Lords. Of course we are not. We derive our authority from an elective system on adult suffrage; the House of Lords owes any authority it claims to heredity. Therefore, it has been deprived of any power with regard to a money Bill except to delay it for a period which I think is still one month. But we have an undoubted right in this chamber, as elected representatives on a different basis of election from another place, in relation to a money Bill of this character. On a special appropriation for repatriation benefits, we have the right to reject the Bill. The House of Lords forfeited that right years before 1911 but was deprived of it in 1.911. We hold the right. I hope a . situation will never develop by abuse whereby we are deprived of the right. We have a reserve of authority which we in this Senate will exercise on the appropriate occasion.
By the same token, with regard to a special appropriation bill of this character, although we have no direct right to amend the Bill, we have an assured constitutional right at any stage of the Bill to request amendments to it. The Senate, with a sense of responsibility, will be conscious of the authority that the Constitution entrusts to us in this respect. Having been vested by the Parliament of the country with a basis of proportional representation, we will not allow ourselves simply to imitate the gyrations of party politics elsewhere, but will exercise that authority to request amendments with responsibility, with restraint and with caution because it will be very valuable one day - I suggest very soon - if necessary to make use of that authority on a subject we are discussing today.
I am one who is conscious in all humility of my responsibilities. 1 do not care about the comments of all the satirists from the metropolitan Press as to inexperience. All the defamers here and elsewhere will not deter me from claiming in the most forthright terms that when this country decides upon compulsory battle service for nien, nobody should say that the defence vote of this country should not encompass proper repatriation compensation for those who die or are disabled. Make no mistake. I will not adopt such a view when I submit my judgment to the people. In my view, the adoption of compulsory military service demands from us a complete re-thinking of the basis of repatriation compensation. If we, as a country, compensate these men on a scale inferior to that which we, by the laws of the country, compel individuals to compensate civilian casualties, we are unworthy to be defended. So far as I am concerned, that is definite.
I speak with a pressing sense, I hope, of my responsibility to present and future casualties that are incurred in my defence and in defence of any people I represent now or will have the claim to represent in the future. The same .spirit in my view, impels a proper acknowledgment of the men of the First World War and the Boer War and their entitlement to proper benefits in the way of hospitalisation and medical treatment. Permit me to say, now, with a sense of the value of years - mainly bec use too few are left to me and perhaps too many have not been used to advantage - that years are life. They are life in the existence of men who fought in Gallipoli and France.
As my Leader stated, he accorded to others and himself a different assessment of priorities, and he knows that my assessment of priorities is different from his in a very objective sense. There will be those who will try to engender into any difference between Senator Henty and myself a personal aspect. Such unworthiness in public expression I despise and pass by. For myself, years represent life. Few remain to the veterans of France, the average age of whom is now 72. Those who do not qualify for hospital and medical benefits - they number some 50,000 to 60,000 out of 106,000 survivors - fail in the main not by reason of the fact that they have means above the means test limit but because in the administration of the repatriation system so much value is accorded to records. They, being the best soldiers in the line, were too proud to put on record any occasion that would earn them benefits in later years. They were discharged in 1919 when the proudest boast was, “ I fought “, and the second proudest was, “ I am going back now to earn my living without what the country calls a pension “.
I say these things because those who follow me in this debate will have their full opportunity to criticise me. Last Wednesday I came forward at an early stage of the debate to indicate my viewpoint in this respect, holding the views that I have expressed. Last Wednesday I accorded to the Government the right to determine this issue so far as money i« concerned. “Np.v illy in view of the fact that that Government was, in less than two months, to submit itself to the judgment of the people. So far as 1 am concerned, the Government has taken its decision upon this issue and it has been supported by a majority of the House of Representatives. This is an appropriation Bill and the question before us, in substance, is whether we are to persist with a request for an amendment to include this provision.
Senator McManus, whose presence as a unit in this chamber I for one am proud of, and to whom I listen with the greatest respect - and the greater respect when I differ from him - has pointed out that the provision that gives rise to the issue says not that the Government shall appropriate $2.5 million for hospital and medical benefits, but that it may provide them on such terms and conditions as the Commission determines from time to time. In my submission, the evaluation that Senator McManus assigns to that clause is really not a robust interpretation of the real and substantial meaning of it. I would join him in intense criticism of the Government, if the clause were carried and the Government failed in due time - in the course of a year - to provide hospital and medical benefits for the First World War veterans and the Boer War veterans who needed that hospital accommodation. I do not think that the argument is met by saying, on a technical interpretation of the clause, that the Government can spend $2.5 million according to its discretion. A government that did not fully implement the clause according to the substance and the purpose of the clause, would be failing to fulfil the purpose of the Parliament.
The House of Representatives upholds the decision of the Government on the noninclusion of the provision. The Government, supported by it, has taken a decision on this matter. I, for my part, am not the government of this country. The Senate is not the government of this country. The people who really control the money that is appropriated and the taxation that is imposed are the people who are elected to another place, their decisions being subject to our revision and review. The Senate having made last Thursday a decision that required reconsideration by the Government, my view is that to insist upon the implementation of that decision now would be an over-exertion and abuse of our authority, the like of which wrought such a calamity on the House of Lords between 1906 and 1911 as permanently to relegate it to the position of a nonentity, without any authority with regard to money bills, except to delay them for one month.
I have spoken in this way, being one of the most troublesome persons, on former occasions, fully conscious of the possibility of all sorts of varying emphasis of criticism. Motives are to be imputed. Charges of subservience to party authority will be peddled, perhaps. So far as I am concerned, I am completely indifferent to party authority, parliamentary or extra-parliamentary. I will take my fortune as it comes. But as I told the Senate last week, my right to make my decision has never heretofore been questioned, nor would 1 permit it to be questioned in the sense that I would continue any discussion after the question was raised. Having asserted my right to individual judgment, I claim the obligation to recognise the fact that I am an individual among 59 others* Together we constitute the Senate, and the Senate as a branch of the Parliament, not fully half of the Parliament, has its constitutional restraints, springing not only from the written Constitution but also from prudence.
The House of Representatives having made its decision on this money Bill, there is no conceit in the bouteille of my existence which demands that I persevere at this juncture. The House of Representatives has taken the responsibility of attacking the judgment of the people who oppose the Government.
Last week references were made to Senator Wright’s conscience. Since then, as a diversion from contemporary debute, I have been reading the memoirs of De Gaulle. I am about half way through the volume. T came across the passage which states that De Gaulle said to Churchill -
But you will easily surmount them-
That is. certain propositions - the moment your conscience has nothing to reproach you for.
Then we have, in the glorious English into which Dc Gaulle has been translated, the reply that De Gaulle attributes to Churchill - “ You should know “, Churchill growled, “ that my conscience is a good girl I can always come to terms with.”
– Do you think you are Churchill?
– No. I do not. But when Churchill expresses a thought which deserves some meditation, I, wilh perhaps one millionth or even one thousandthmillionth of the responsibility that he shouldered, can accept some comfort from sharing that thought. So far as I am concerned, tonight the A.I.F. diggers of the First World War will not, by my vote, be accorded the support of a vain exercise of rights that the Senate cannot ensure will prevail. When we come to a new year nobody will deprive us of the opportunity of renewing our appeal.
– The honorable senator put it off last year until this year.
– Five years ago I started this advocacy. In three of those years I spoke but did not vote, and in two years I voted.
– They will all be dead soon.
– I pointed out how valuable years are to a group of people whose average age is 72 years.
– Your conscience comes first.
– 1 do not make any claim about conscience, especially when Senator Turnbull raises the matter. As one unit in a branch of the Parliament, 1 have expressed my point of view in regard to a vote on this year’s appropriation. I submit myself and that judgment to the debate of the Senate.
– Madam Acting Deputy President, as a result of a ruling by the Deputy President, we are discussing a new Bill. He ruled against the point of order that was taken by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) and said that to all intents and purposes the Bill we discussed last week differed from the measure now before us. They differ in one point, and in one point alone. The difference is that the Bill now before us is such that the Senate can only request that an amendment be made but cannot actually amend the Bill. One wonders to what extent the Government will go to avoid accepting what the mass of the people outside the Parliament decide is common justice. The Government is compelling boys 20 years of age to spill their blood and in some cases to give their lives fighting in a conflict which it does not describe as being a war. Members of the Government are the only people in the world who do not say that we are fighting a war.
The men who volunteered for service in the early years of this century are now of no further use in a blood battle; they are finished and cannot be used as fodder. The Government adopts this attitude concerning them: “ What does it matter if they are not alloted to go into repatriation hospitals in their last years?” Senator Wright said that the men of the 1914-18 War are now 72 years of age. How much older does he thi.-.i those who served in the Boer War wo:;’d be? There must be very few of them left. It appals me to see this Government, which compels boys to spill their blood for a cause that very few people believe in and which is treating shabbily the older men who volunteered for service because they thought it was their duty to do so, doing what it is now doing. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) said that the only ex-servicemen who are denied the right of medical and hospital treatment are those who are wealthy or who have sufficient to enable them to provide for their own hospitalisation. What is the position? It is true that if veterans of the 1914-18 War establish entitlement to a pension, they are eligible to enter repatriation hospitals. But surely Senator Henty knows as well as I do that there are veterans who are not receiving a pension - neither a service pension nor an age pension - and who are not wealthy because, under the means lest, a person need have only his own home and a certain income to be disqualified from eligibility for a pension. I understand that a number of people who would be eligible for treatment if the Government accepted the proposed amendment has been estimated at about 50,000.
I regret the position the Government has taken. The amendment proposed by the Opposition last week left it to the discretion of the Repatriation Commission to decide the number who would receive treatment this year and whether the number would be increased next year. Senator Wright said that if the amendment were carried he and other honorable senators would rise in their places and demand that in one fell swoop every veteran of the Boer War and World War I should receive hospitalisation when he needed it. I am not impressed by Senator Wright’s past form. I do not think that he would rise in indignation and be there at the finish. I do not want to discuss now the speech made tonight by Senator Wright. I leave it to him to ponder over the manner and words of his speech and over his final decision. He can have that. In my opinion, it is another milestone on the remarkable road of speeches that he has made on many remarkable occasions.
– He can leave it to his conscience.
– I leave his conscience alone, as I hope he will leave my conscience alone. I do not want to discuss his attitude any further. I would rather that he had the trouble of thinking about it than that I should. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government in this matter. In view of the Government’s actions in respect of Vietnam and the fact that not a great deal of expenditure would be involved, even if it were introduced in one fell swoop - and that was not what the amendment provided for - the Government’s attitude is hard to understand. I hope that even at this late hour some Government supporters who served with the men who are the subject of the amendment wilt come to realise that some of their mates are not in as advantageous a financial position as they are themselves. I hope that they will let their minds roam back to the time when they were mates. Some of them may be in need of hospitalisation. In the interests of those men and in the interests of the youth of this country, I ask the Government to reconsider. The men who serve this country ought to be able to say: “ If we serve Australia in its hour of need, it will be grateful to us for the service that we give.”
I cannot comprehend why the Government is so stubborn on this matter. It is only a question of justice for those people who served as very young boys in the 1914-18 War. The Government would not have been so stingy then, if I may use that term, in its thoughts about the soldiers’ wellbeing. Nearly 50 years have elapsed and it sickens me to think that, on the one hand, the Government can conscript boys to fight in Vietnam and, on the other hand, will not even compel any other person in Australia to pay money as his share. No doubt, in years to come, if the Government continues to think as it does, the Government will treat the people who are serving today in the same way as it is now treating the people who served in the 1914-18 War. 1 do not want to say much more about it. I regret very much the attitude of the Government. I can only say that man’s inhumanity to man in times like these makes one wonder what will become of the boys who are serving today if they want, as they are entitled to want, not just words, but deeds, when their time comes to need hospitalisation.
– In one sense this debate has been educational, to me at any rate. I have learned from the Government that when we put in a clause which states: “ The Commission may, subject to such conditions . . . provide medical and hospital treatment “, the words “ may, subject to such conditions “ really means “ must, without any conditions.” I am sure parliamentary draftsmen all over the world will enshrine that precedent in the books they write in the future on parliamentary procedure. We all know that “ may “ does not mean “ must “. The Government did not have to provide this treatment. It was a polite request that it should look into the matter and see if it could do so. The result is that we have this Bill which is a steam hammer to crack a nut. I do not think that the Australian Democratic Labour Party sees any reason to alter its previous stand, and therefore 1 will be very brief. I shall merely say that if a request is moved on the same lines as the amendment which has caused all the discussion, we certainly shall support it.
– 1 intend to touch on only one subject and that is the question of hospital and medical costs. I think that the figures supplied by the Minister are so outrageous that they are almost dishonest. It just cannot be possible for repatriation officers to arrive at a figure of $5 million capital cost. In the first place, they are assuming that all these people are going to be ill at the one time. How ridiculous that is. Secondly, they say that $5 million for capital expenditure will have to be provided at the one time for beds. If these people are sick at the present time where do they go? There are beds available for them, so all that the Government has to do is pay the cost of those beds to a hospital. That is not a capital sum but a recurring sum which comes out of revenue. The capital sum is nil. It is not necessary to spend one penny by way of capital expenditure. When these people are ill at the present moment they have to go into a Government hospital. They could still do that and the Government would pay for it.
The Government has said that the cost would be $2i million. I do not know how it has arrived at mat cost. The average length of stay in hospital is 10 to 12 days, if the hospital is efficient. In the repatriation hospitals it is always longer. However, allowing for a stay of 12 days at the most, for 40,000 people which is the assessment of the Returned Services League - the Department says it is 100,000 - and assuming that they were all ill together, which is absurd, only 1,300 beds would be needed. I was informed that 8,000 beds would be needed. I think that is what the Minister told me. I ask the Minister whether he told me that 8,000 beds would be needed.
– No, I did not.
– The Minister may care to tell me by way of interjection how many beds he thinks would be needed. As 1 have said, if all these people were ill at the one time, 1,300 beds would be needed, but of course all the people will not be ill at the one time. In fact, I doubt very much whether even 800 beds would be needed.
As Senator Willesee said, if there were a little more efficiency and if the Department did not keep putting people into the hospitals who did not need to be there there would not be any increased cost because there would be empty beds in which to accommodate these people. However, I think that the figures which have been supplied are so outrageous that they should not be taken into consideration.
– in reply - First, I would like to express my appreciation of the manner in which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) approached the introduction of this Bill tonight. I propose to follow the line that he took. I do not intend to traverse all the arguments that were thrown backwards and forwards during the debate of an earlier Bill-. At the outset I emphasise once again the meaning of repatriation. Its purpose is to provide help for those who are in need of it and who are suffering from war caused disabilities. That is the primary purpose of repatriation and that is what the Repatriation Department has done in the past and what I hope it will do in the future. Very briefly, if the amendment were carried it would mean that all those who enlisted in the Services during the 1914-18 War would be eligible for treatment in repatriation hospitals. In the terms of the amendment it would not be necessary for them to have served in a war area. They could have served anywhere so long as they enlisted. They would not need to be in the group which returned from overseas. They would not need to be in a financial position where they were precluded from self help.
Reference has been made to the money that is being spent in this war Budget, as it has been termed. Let me put this proposition to the Senate. Is not this something that is very necessary if wc ar’e to preserve not only Australia but also those who are in need of repatriation benefits? If we cannot hold this country, what is the good of providing additional benefits? If we are going to provide extra benefits for 12 months and then lose the country, where does that get us? So, the first task is to see that this country is capable of its own defence, and that is what the Government has done. Reference has been made to the attitude I adopted some 12 months ago. I would adopt the same attitude today. I have always been a champion - 1 hope I can so describe myself - of the Senate and its rights, because I believe in the Senate. I believe that what the Senate did a couple of days ago it had a perfect right to do and that what the other place did it had a right to do also. Therefore, this is parliamentary government, constitutional government, being exercised in a democratic manner. Having registered the feelings of the Senate, as I did a couple of days ago, I also want to say that it is not within the province of the Senate to say to any government, whether it be a Liberal-Country Party Government or a Labour Party Government: “ You have made Budget decisions but we are not going to abide by them.” If we do that, I suggest we are adopting a speedy way of abolishing the Senate. This Bill is no longer a Senate Bill. Do not let us have any illusions about that. The first Bill that we had here was a Senate Bill, but this one is not. The Bill now before the Senate was initiated in the other place. Let us get that straight.
It is easy for the Opposition to suggest that we should increase benefits and make increased payments not only in respect of repatriation but also in respect of social services generally. I have no doubt at all that if those of us who are in Government at the present time were in Opposition we would be doing exactly the same thing. That is part of the role of an Opposition. But we have to remember that an Opposition, while trying to force the Government to do those things, is not obliged to find the wherewithal to do them. That is the difference.
Suggestions have been made which perhaps were not intended to convey the impression, but nevertheless carried the implication, that this procedure may be relegating me to the position of a second class Minister, inasmuch as this Bill has originated in the other place. I remind the Senate that tariff bills originate in the other place regardless of whether the Minister is in the other place or in the Senate. I do not feel that 1 have been relegated to a second place at all. This Bill has been brought about by a
I set of circumstances. After all, a govern>ment has either to govern or get out. In J this instance the Government has set out to govern.
– We are not getting out.
– No. I am quite prepared to defend the stand I have taken anywhere, at any time and to anybody. Up to the point of time when the Cabinet makes a decision I am fighting the battles of the ex-service organisations, but when the Cabinet makes a decision I am defending the Cabinet from then on. Let there be no mistake about that. I am prepared to accept the consequences. i I wish to point out quite calmly and dis passionately what would happen if we failed to pass this Bill tonight. I am not making threats. I merely propose to recite the events that would follow. The increased benefits that we hope to pay on Thursday next would not be paid. Senator Tangney. - We could come back next week. j Senator McKELLAR.- What would hap pen if we came back next week? Tell me that. The Government is sticking to its decision. If the Senate decides not to accept this Bill, it simply means that these increased benefits will not be paid. Who will be responsible for that? Answer that question.
– The Government.
– The Government would not be responsible. It would have decided on a policy, but members of this chamber would have decided that that was not a policy that should be put into operation. They would not allow it to be put into operation. If members in this chamber decide not to accept the Bill, there will be no doubt where the blame lies.
– That is old hat.
– It is time that the honorable senator wore it. It has been suggested that the Bill could be passed later and that these increased pension payments could be made retrospectively. Even if that were possible, it would involve a lot of dislocation of work and extra expense. The Repatriation Department and the Department of Social Services have a very satisfactory arrangement whereby social service pension cheques and repatriation pension cheques are posted on the same day. If the Senate does not pass this Bill, next Thursday we will be faced with the position that increased payments will be made to social service recipients but not to repatriation benefit recipients.
A lot of emphasis has been placed on the word “ may “. How on earth does anybody think that we could live with the position that this amendment was carried but could not be put into operation? The position just does not bear thinking about. Because of the brevity of the speeches of other honorable senators, I shall be brief in the remainder of my reply. Let me tell Senator Turnbull that it has never been suggested that we would have to find $5 million off the reel for the capital cost of this hospitalisation. That is the amount that would be required, but not in six months or even 12 months from now. I close by saying that I sincerely trust that before honorable senators make a decision on this matter, they will weigh the consequences that will follow if they fail to pass the Bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee.
Clauses 1 to 8 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.
. -I move -
That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the Bill by inserting a new clause viz: - “ 8a. After Section 123 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted- 123a. The Commission may, subject to such conditions as it from time to time determines, provide medical and hospital treatment for a member of the Forces as defined in section twenty-three of this Act and for a person to which section one hundred and twenty of this Act applies.’.”
The reasons for this request for an amendment were given during the second reading debute.I do not intend to add anything now.
.-I shall not detain the Committee, except to say that, in my view, it has been clearly shown that this Bill, providing as it does for substantial increases in T.P.I, pensions, intermediate pensions and widows’ pensions, is required so that the increases can be paid next week. Insistence on the amendment to which the Senate agreed last week, and which is in effect the amendment which Senator Bishop has moved tonight, would, in my view, only lead to a deadlock with the House of Representatives, which, as I have said, is already committed to an election within the next two months. In my view, it would be most imprudent for us to agree to a request for an amendment which deprived beneficiaries of these increases, in the midst of the constitutional situation that would follow. Those are my reasons for voting against the requested amendment tonight.
– I say in reply to Senator Wright that as he is very fond of poetry he ought to remember the famous line -
Each man kills the thing he loves.
Question put -
That the request (Senator Bishop’s) be agreed to.
The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Wedgwood.)
AYES: 23
NOES: 23
Majority . . . . Nil
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill reported without requests; report adopted.
Bill (on motion by Senator McKellar) read a third time.
page 882
Reports on Items.
. present reports by the Tariff Board on the following subjects -
Clothes pegs.
Coffee.
page 882
Motion (by Senator Henty) agreed to -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 11th October, at 3 p.m.
Senate adjourned at 11.43 p.m. till Tuesday, 11th October 1966.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 September 1966, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1966/19660929_senate_25_s32/>.